THE RAPTURE IN TWENTY CENTURIES OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION PDF Free Download
1 / 151/151
100%
1All Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible unless otherwise indicated.
149
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 149-171
THE RAPTURE IN TWENTY CENTURIES
OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
James F. Stitzinger
Associate Professor of Historical Theology
The coming of God’s Messiah deserves closer attention than it has often
received. The future coming of the Messiah, called the “rapture,” is imminent,
literal and visible, for all church saints, before the hour of testing, premillennial,
and, based on a literal hermeneutic, distinguishes between Israel and the church.
The early church fathers’ views advocated a sort of imminent intra- or post-
tribulationism in connection with their premillennial teaching. With a few
exceptions, the Medieval church writers said little about a future millennium and a
future rapture. Reformation leaders had little to say about prophetic portions of
Scripture, but did comment on the imminency of Christ’s return. The modern period
of church history saw a return to the early church’s premillennial teaching and a
pretribulational rapture in the writings of Gill and Edwards, and more particularly
in the works of J. N. Darby. After Darby, pretribulationism spread rapidly in both
Great Britain and the United States. A resurgence of posttribulationism came after
1952, accompanied by strong opposition to pretribulationism, but a renewed support
of pretribulationism has arisen in the recent past. Five premillennial views of the
rapture include two major views—pretribulationism and posttribulation-ism—and
three minor views—partial, midtribulational, and pre-wrath rapturism.
* * * * *
Introduction
The central theme of the Bible is the coming of God’s Messiah. Genesis
3:15 reveals the first promise of Christ’s coming when it records, “He shall bruise
you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”1 Revelation 22:20 unveils
the last promise when it records “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am
coming quickly,’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” In fact, the entire Bible can be
150 The Master’s Seminary Journal
2Thomas Dehany Bernard (The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, Eight Lectures delivered
before the University of Oxford on The Bampton Foundation, 1864 [New Y ork: American Tract Society,
1891] 22) terms this dynamic of Scripture as progressive revelation and profoundly concludes that “the
progressive system of teaching in the New Testament is an obvious fact, that it is marked by distinct
stages, and that it is determ ined by natural principle s.” See 22-46 for his full developm ent.
3Alva J. McClain, with revisions by Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr., “Christian Theology: Biblical
Eschatology” (unpublished clas sroom syllabus; Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, n.d.)
39.
4Ibid., 39-40.
5Ibid.
understood in relation to this theme. The Old Testament declares, He is coming (Isa
7:14; 9:6). The four Gospels declare, He has come—and is coming again (John
1:29; 14:3, 18-19). Finally, Acts, the epistles, and the book of Revelation declare,
Having come, He is coming again (Acts 1:11; 2 Thess 1:10; Rev 1:7).2
As Alva J. McClain points out, the revelation of the Messiah’s coming is
a “revelation in which the different elements are related, not mechanical, but
dynamic and progressive. . . . A revelation in which the different elements are
related, not in any merely external manner, but as the parts of a growing plant are
related.”3 As Mark 4:26-28 describes it, “The kingdom of God is like a man who
casts seed upon the soil. . . . The soil produces crops by itself; first the blade, then
the head, then the mature grain in the head.” In the same way, “[T]he doctrine of
our Lord’s Coming into the world unfolds like a growing plant, which at every stage
of revelation contains the germ of the yet unrevealed.”4 Each element of this
progressive revelation takes the reader deeper into the complexity of His coming.
•The Old Testament gives the promise of Christ’s coming.
•The Gospels unfold this coming in two comings.
• The Gospels unfold the first coming as a series of events, including the Virgin
conception, birth, perfect life, ministry, atoning death, resurrection, appearances,
and ascension.
• The Epistles unfold the second coming into two main phases; the rapture and the
revelation.
• The Book of Revelation unfolds these two phases into a series of events, separated
by 7 years (Dan 9:27). The first of these is the rapture, accompanied by the
resurrection, translation, judgement seat of Christ, and the marriage supper of the
Lamb. The second of these is the revelation, accompanied by Armageddon, the
millennial kingdom, and the white throne judgement.5
The deeper one looks into the coming of Christ, the more complex, intriguing, and
astonishing it becomes, much like the beauty and complexity of human DNA under
the microscope, or the heavens as viewed through a telescope (Ps 8:3-4).
Sadly, many fail to discern this intrigue and approach prophecy with the use
of Ockham’s Razor principle (from the great English scholastic, William of Ockham,
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 151
6Heiko A. O berman, The Dawn of the Reformation. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 27.
7Ibid., 54 .
8Each position entails an oversimplification of the doctrine of Christ’s coming. For example,
posttribulationism, which often operates within a dispensational framework, regards the second coming
“as having one posttribulational phase.” Historic premillennialism, which takes a similar position but
uses covenant theology as its underpining, eliminates the Israel-church distinction among the people of
God.. Amillennialism disallows the earthly millennial kingdom and thus views Christ’s future coming
as a brief event follow ed by the eternal state. See R olland Dale M cCune, An Investigation and Criticism
of “Historic” Premillennialism from the Viewpoint of Dispensationalism (Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace
Theological Seminary, 1972) 5-9.
9Albrecht Oepke, “B"D@LF\",” TDNT, 5:859.
10Gerald B. Stanton , Kept From the Hour (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956) 20 notes, “The primary
meaning seems to be presence, rather than mere coming, as further illustrated by I Cor 10:10. . . . The
eschatological use of the word seems to add the thought of arrival, or advent, and is not restricted to
either phase of the second coming ” [emphasis origin al].
11Oepke, “B"D@LF\"” 5:870.
1280-1349). In Ockham’s development of a nominalistic pursuit of the real, he
insisted upon using the razor to slash away at complex explanations “of the
hierarchy of being, of ideas and concepts, which sheer speculation had invented” in
the realist’s pursuit of what is real.6 He asserted that what could be done with
fewer assumptions is done in vain with more, and therefore, he called for the
“rejection and pruning of all concepts which are not absolutely necessary.”7
posttribulationalists, historic premillennialists, postmillennialists as well as
amillennialists8 all say, “Apply the razor!” and in doing so, reduce the two-phase
second coming of Christ to one phase. Such tragic conclusions are similar to those
of anti-trinitarians who find one person in the Godhead rather than three, or early
students of Christology who said one nature of Christ rather than two distinct natures
in the one person of the God-man (Phil 2:6-8). Rather than “apply the razor,” one
should plunge into the depths of biblical teaching on the comings of Christ, making
clear the biblical distinctions, and look deeply into the issues and nuances of the text,
rather than being satisfied with traditional answers originating in unquestioned
preunderstandings when approaching the text.
The Subject at Hand
The study of the rapture is part of a wider study of the parousia. The Greek
word B"D@LF\" (parousia) literally means “being along side,” “presence,” or “to
be present.”9 New Testament usage makes it clear that the parousia is not merely
the act or arrival of the Lord but the total situation surrounding Messiah’s coming.10
Oepke writes, “The parousia, in which history is anchored, is not a historical event.
. . . It is rather the point where history is mastered by God’s eternal rule.”11 The uses
of the term in 2 Thess 2:1; Jas 5:7-8; 2 Pet 1:16; 1 John 2:28 all refer to the coming
of Christ in general. Thus, the parousia looks backward to Christ’s first coming on
152 The Master’s Seminary Journal
12Richard L. Mayhue, “The Prophet’s Watchword: Day of the Lord,” Grace Theological Journal
6 (1985):230 .
13Werner Foerster, “DBV.T,” TDNT 1:472.
14Robert G. Clouse, “Rapture of the Church,” in Evangelical Dictionary o f Theology, ed. Walter
A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 908.
15New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993 ed., s.v. “rapture.”
16Support for this position and the characteristics that follow can be found in other articles of this
issue of TMSJ.
earth and looks ahead to the future, beginning with the rapture, followed by the
seven-year tribulation, followed by the revelation (second coming), followed by
Armegeddon, and finally the one-thousand-year millennial or theocratic kingdom.
It is a wider term than “The Day of the Lord,” which is best understood in Scripture
as the judgement which climaxes the tribulation period (2 Thess 2:2; Revelation
16–18) and millennium just prior to the eternal state (2 Pet 3:10-13; Rev
20:7–21:1).12 The pretribulational view of the rapture to be considered here sees the
rapture of the church taking place at the beginning of the next phase of the parousia
and thus before the tribulation period begins.
The rapture represents the translation or removal of the church to be with
Christ forever. Scripture describes this great event in 1 Cor 15:52 by “the dead in
Christ shall rise first, and we shall be changed”; in John 14:3 by “I will come again,
and receive you to myself”; and in 1 Thess 4:17 by “we shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds . . . and thus shall we always be with the Lord.” The word
for “caught up” in 1 Thess 4:17 is from the Greek word DBV.T (harpazÇ) which
means “to take by force” or “to catch up or away,”13 and is also related to the Latin
verb rapio, meaning “caught up,”14 or the noun raptura.15 Assuming that the rapture
begins the parousia,16 several characteristics important to discussing the history of
the rapture should be noted.
•The coming of Christ at the rapture is imminent, in the sense of an any-
moment coming. Though there are no signs for the rapture, there are signs
of the second coming to follow and these may appear before the rapture.
Note Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:16; Titus 2:13; Jas 5:7-9
•The coming of Christ at the rapture is literal and visible. Rev 1:7 states
“Every eye shall see Him.”
•The coming of Christ at the rapture is for all church saints, deceased or
living. First Thess 4:14, 17 and 1 Cor 15:51 record the order of this great
event.
•This coming of Christ occurs before the outpouring of the great trial upon
the earth. A literal translation of Rev 3:10 states that the believer is kept
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 153
17Note the careful development of the issues surrounding Revelation 3:10 by Paul D. Feinberg, “The
Case for the Pretribulational Rapture Position,” in R ichard Re iter et al., The Raptur e: Pre-Mid-, or Post-
Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Academie, 1984) 64-70.
18See Robert D. Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage from Saint Paul,” Papers . . . read at the
Eighth An nual M eeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, ed. Jo hn F . Walvoord (Grand R apids,
1955) 27-33.
19Millard Erickson (The Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, rev. ed. [Wheaton, Ill:
Crossway, 2001] 31) defines chiliasm as “Belief in an earthly millennium; in particular, in the early
centuries of the church a premillennialism that held a very vivid and imaginative view of conditions
during the millennium.” George E. Ladd (Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1952] 23) forcefully concludes, “[W]ith one exception [Caius] there is no Church Father
before Origen who opposed the millenarian interpretation, and there is no one before A ugustine whose
extant writings offer a d ifferen t interpretation of Revelation 20 than that of a future earthly kingdom
conso nant w ith the natural interpretation of th e lan guage.”
20See Alexander Rob erts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981): Barnabas, The Epistle of Barnabas 15 (146-47); P apias, Fragments of Papias
6 (154-55); Justin M artyr, Dialogue with Trypho 80 (238); Irenaeus, Irenaeus Against Heresies 5, 30, 3-4
(559-60); Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh 22 (560-6 1); H ippolytus, Treatise on Christ and
Antichrist 65 (218); Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian 55:1 (347), The Treatises of Cyprian 11:1-2 (496);
in “a continuing state outside of” the hour of testing upon the earth.17
•This coming of Christ is premillennial, that is, before Christ returns to fight
the battle of Armageddon and set up the 1,000-year kingdom, and judge
unbelievers. First Cor 15:23-24 along with Dan 12:1-2 places the coming
of Christ before these events.18
•This coming of Christ assumes a literal, normal hermeneutic in the
interpretation of Scripture, and it recognizes a fundamental theological
distinction between Israel and the church.
Having identified the pretribulation rapture and its major characteristics, this article
will now focus on a history of those who have held this position.
The Rapture in Church History
The rapture in church history is really a history of pretribulationism. Other
related, historically held views do not distinguish between the two phases of Christ’s
coming: rapture and revelation. Partial, midtrib, and pre-wrath positions are recent
positions that have very little if any history.
The Early Fathers
A cursory examination of the early church fathers reveals that they were
predominantly premillennialists or chiliasts.19 Clear examples in the writings of
Barnabas (ca. 100-150), Papias (ca. 60-130), Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (120-
202), Tertullian (145-220), Hippolytus (c. 185-236), Cyprian (200-250), and
Lactantius (260-330) make this understanding impossible to challenge successfully.20
154 The Master’s Seminary Journal
and L acta ntius, The D ivine Institutes VII, 24-26 (219-22).
21Charles A. Hauser (“The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers” [unpublished Th.D.
dissertation; Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theo logical Seminary, 1961] 25-57) carefully surveys the early
fathers on this issue and concludes, “These men are sure that the Church would go throug h the
tribulation” (56).
22John F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979) 80; also The Rapture
Qu estion, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979) 51-54.
23Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic Fathers,” in When
the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995) 88.
24Saint C lement, Epistle to the Corinthians 23, 35 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:11,14.
25Ignatius, The Epistle to the Ephesians 11 in Ante-Nicene F athers 1:54.
It is also significant to note that the early fathers largely held to a period of
persecution that would be ongoing when the return of the Lord takes place and most
would see the church suffering through some portion of the tribulation period.21 At
the same time, it is very clear that the early church fathers believed in the imminent
return of Christ, which is a central feature of pretribulational thought.22 This lack of
precision among the fathers as to the exact time of Christ premillennial return has
led to confusion among scholars as to how to understand the fathers in these areas.
As Larry Crutchfield notes, “If anyone searches the fathers for a fully detailed,
systematic presentation about the doctrine of last things, he searches in vain. . . .”23
The following is a brief survey of imminency as taught by the early church fathers.
Though these facts are informative and important to the contemporary discussion,
that it is never appropriate to build a doctrine based on the teachings of the fathers
must be kept in mind.
Clement of Rome (ca. 90-100)
Clement wrote, “[O]f a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be
accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, ‘Speedly will He come,
and will not tarry’; and ‘The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy
One, for whom ye look.’” “Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the
number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised
gifts.”24 Clement quotes Hab 2:3 and Mal 3:1 in a clear statement of imminence.
Ignatius of Antioch (d. ca. 98-117).
Ignatius wrote, “The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a
reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, lest we despise the riches of His
goodness and forbearance.” On the basis of Romans 2:4, he continues, “For let us
either fear the wrath to come, or let us love the present joy in the life that now is; and
let our present and true joy be only this, to be found in Christ Jesus, that we may
truly live.”25 Ignatius wrote to Polycarp, “Be watchful, possessing a sleepless spirit,”
and “Be ever more becoming more zealous than what thou art. Weigh carefully the
times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 155
26Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp 1, 3 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:93-94.
27The Didache, or Teaching of the Apostles 16 in The Apostolic Fathers, rev. and trans by J. B.
Lightfoot (London: Macmillan, 1926) 235.
28Barnabas, The Epistle of Barnabas 21, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:149.
29The Shepherd of Hermas S.9,7 in The Apostolic Fathers 465.
30George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 20. J. B arton Payne, The
Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 17.
31Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1973) 175.
visible for our sakes.”26
The Didache (ca. 100-160)
The final chapter of the Didache provides one of the clearest and
comprehensive statements on imminency: “Be watchful for your life; let your lamps
not be quenched and your loins not ungirded, but be ye ready; for ye know not the
hour in which our Lord cometh.”27 In the same paragraph, the author urges
“gathering yourselves together frequently,” in light of the imminence of the Lord’s
return. He then speaks of the appearance of the “world-deceiver” (which the context
indicates is the Antichrist) and the persecution associated with his coming.
Barnabas (ca. 117-138)
The Epistle of Barnabas reflects a similar view of imminency when it
states, “For the day is at hand on which all things shall perish with the evil [one].
The Lord is near and his reward.”28
Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 96-150)
The theme of imminency continues in the Shepherd of Hermas as the
church is compared to a tower: “Let us go away, and after two days let us come and
clean these stones, and put them into the building; for all things round the tower
must be made clear, lest haply the master come suddenly and find the circuit dirty,
and he be wroth, and so these stones shall not go to the building of the tower, and
I shall appear to be careless in my master’s sight.”29
Summary
These statements of imminency have led George Ladd, J. Barton Payne,30
and Robert Gundry to affirm that the early fathers held to posttribulationalism in the
modern sense. Gundry states, “Irenaeus, who claims to hold that which was handed
down from the apostles, was as forthright a posttribulationist as could be found in
the present day.”31 Gundry’s assumption, however, is unwarranted for several
reasons. First, the early fathers (before 324) lived in a world of Roman persecution
which was for them a way of life and a factor in all they believed and did. The
156 The Master’s Seminary Journal
32W. H. C . Frend , Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965)
238-40.
33These two reasons are well developed by Crutchfield, “The Blessed Hope” 91-94.
34Ibid., 101.
35Walvoord, The Rapture Question 53-54.
36Crutchfield, “The Blessed Hope” 77. Millard J. Erickson (Contemporary Options in Eschatology
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977] 131) concludes the following, “W hile there are in the writings of the early
fathers seeds from which the doctrine of the pretribulational raptu re could be developed, it is difficult to
find in them an unequivocal statement of the type of imminency u sua lly believed by pretrib ulationists.”
In response to this Crutchfield adds, “The seeds were indeed there but were crushed under the allegorist’s
foot before they could sprout and bear early fruit” (454).
37Crutchfield, “The Blessed Hope” 103.
Romans called them “atheists” for failing to worship their gods.32 Second, the early
fathers treated these issues of persecution in a simplistic, unreflective manner, which
is hardly a well developed posttribulational position.33 This data leads Crutchfield
to describe thoughtfully the still unclear writings of the fathers as “intratribulation-
al,” that is, “within” or “during” the tribulation.34
In the end, no one can produce a clear statement of patristic eschatology
regarding the rapture. What can be concluded is the following:
•The early fathers placed strong emphasis upon imminency.
•They early fathers understood a literal coming of Christ, and a literal 1,000-
year kingdom to follow.
•A type of imminent intratribulationism (Crutchfield) or imminent
posttribulationism (Walvoord)35 with occasional pretribulational inferences
was believed.36
•The early fathers understood a kind of “practical persecution,” due to times
of general Roman persecution that they experienced, rather than a specific
fulfillment of future tribulational wrath.
Cruthchfield rightly concludes,
This view of the fathers on imminency, and, in some, references to escaping the time of
the Tribulation, constitute what may be termed, to quote Erickson, ‘seeds from which the
doctrine of the pretribulational rapture could be developed. . . .” Had it not been for the
drought in sound exegesis, brought on by Alexandrian allegorism and later by Augustine,
one wonders what kind of crop those seeds might have yielded—long before J. N. Darby
and the nineteenth century.37
The Medieval Church
The period between Augustine and the Renaissance was largely dominated
by “Augustine’s understanding of the church, and his spiritualization of the
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 157
38John Hannah, Our Legacy, The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs, Col.: NavPress,
2001) 315. See also, Robert E. Lerner, “The Medieval Return to the Thousand-Year Sabbath,” in The
Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, eds. Richard K. E mmerson and Bernard McGuinn (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University, 1992) 51-53.
39Hannah, Our Legacy 315-16.
40Dorothy deF. Abrahamse, “Introduction,” in The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition by Paul J.
Alexander (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1985) 1.
41Ibid., 1-2. For further development of this important field of research, see Timothy J. Demy and
Thomas D. Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation,” BSac 152 (1995):308-11.
42Alexander, The Byzantine Apoc alyptic Tradition 136. The full text of the sermon may be found
at <http://www.geocities.com/lasttrumpet_2000/timeline/ephraem.html> or in Grant R. Jeffrey, “A Pretrib
Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” in When the Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House, 1995) 109-15.
43Paul J. Alexander, “The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West and the
Beginnings of Joachimism,” in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays in Honour of Marjorie Reeves, ed.
Ann W illiams (Essex: L ongman, 1980) 58-95.
44Pseudo-Ep hraem, On the Last Times 2.
Millennium as the reign of Christ in the saints.”38 There were only “sporadic
discussions here and there of a literal, future M illennium,”39 making examples of
pretribulationalism very rare. Medieval scholar, Dorothy deF. Abrahamse further
explains the situation when she notes, “. . . Augustine had declared that the
Revelation of John was to be interpreted symbolically rather than literally, and for
most of the Middle Ages Church councils and theologians considered only abstract
eschatology to be acceptable speculation.”40 She goes on to observe, “Since the
nineteenth century, however, historians have recognized that literal apocalypses did
continue to circulate in the medieval world and that they played a fundamental role
in the creation of important strains of thought and legend.”41 Consistent with this
conclusion, several important instances of pretribulational thought have come to
light in recent years.
Ephraem of Nisibis (306-373)
Ephraem was an extremely important and prolific writer. Also known as
Pseudo-Ephraem, he was a major theologian of the early Eastern (Byzantine)
Church. His important sermon, “On the Last Times, the Antichrist and the End of
the World,” (ca. 373) is preserved in four Latin manuscripts and is ascribed to St.
Ephraem or to St. Isidore.42 If not written by Ephraem, it is written by one greatly
influenced by him.43 This Pseudo-Ephraem sermon declares the following: “All the
saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come,
and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion
which overwhelms the world because of our sins.”44 Alexander offers an insightful
comment on these words when he says, “This author, however, mentions another
measure taken by God in order to alleviate the period of tribulation for his saints and
158 The Master’s Seminary Journal
45Alexander, The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition 210. For issues relating to the authorship,
interpretation, and date of Pseudo-Ephraem, consult Demy and Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval
Citation” 311-13.
46Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement” 116-18.
47Pseudo-Ephraem, On the Last Times 2.
48F.M . Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947) 179.
49Ernst Wurthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979) 206.
50Ibid., 207.
51Charlton T. Lewis and Charles Short, A New Latin Dictionary (New York: American Book
Company, 1907) 1523.
52William Hunt, “Ceolfrid,” in Dictionary of National Bio gra phy, eds. Leslie Stephen and Sidney
Lee (Oxford: Oxford University, 1922) 3:1333-34; H. W . Gwatkin et al., eds, Germany and the Western
Empire, in The Cambridge Medieval History (Cambridge: The University Press, 1922) 7:554-56.
for the Elect.”45
In this sermon, Pseudo-Ephraem develops an elaborate biblical eschatology,
including a distinction between the rapture and the second coming of Christ. It
describes the imminent rapture, followed by 3½ years of great tribulation under the
rule of Antichrist, followed by the coming of Christ, the defeat of Antichrist, and the
eternal state. His view includes a parenthesis between the fulfillment of Daniel’s
sixty-nine weeks and his seventieth week in Daniel 9:24-27.46 Pseudo-Ephraem
describes the rapture that precedes the tribulation as “imminent or overhanging.”47
Codex Amiatinus (ca. 690-716)
This significant48 Latin manuscript from England was commissioned by
Abbot Ceolfrid of the monastaries of Jarrow and Wearmouth in Northumberland.
Ceolfrid intended to give it to the Pope as a gift but died on his way to see him. It
was produced during the era of the commentaries of Venerable Bede, who was also
a monk at Jarrow and whose works were heavily influenced by Jerome’s Vulgate.49
In the title to Psalm 22 (Psalm 23 in the Vulgate), the following appears: “Psalm of
David, the voice of the Church after being raptured.”50 The Latin phrase post
raptismum contains a verb from the root rapio which can mean either “to snatch,
hurry away” or “to plunder, take by assault.”51 This title is not carried over from
Jerome’s Vulgate and thus is likely the product of the Jarrow monastary. A history
of the period of Ceolfrid’s life presents no evidence of invasion or suffering52 as if
the title was inserted for comfort in light of a difficult condition in the church. In
contrast, Ceolfrid writes of the Christ’s future sudden return and the resurrection of
the believer, “[W]e show that we rejoice in the most certain hope of our own
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 159
53“Ceolfrid’s letter to N ech tan,” in Ve nerable B ede, A History of the English Church and People,
trans. and with an Introduction by Leo Sherley-Price, rev. by R. E. Latham (New York: Dorset Press,
1968) 32 3.
54This research is fully developed by Francis Gumerlock, “A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth
Century,” BSac 159 (2002):349-62.
55Ibid., 356-57.
56Ibid., 354-55.
57Ibid., 357.
58Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford: The Clarendon
Press, 1969) 246-47.
59Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman, 1988) 323.
resurrection, which we believe will take place on the Lord’s Day.”53 Though not
conclusive and still in need of further study, it appears that Codex Amiatinus
presents another example of pretribulational thought in the Middle Ages.
Brother Dolcino (d. 1307)
A recent study of the fourteenth-century text, The History of Brother
Dolcino, composed in 1316 by an anonymous source, reveals another important
pretribulational passage.54 As leader of the Apostolic Brethren in northern Italy,
Brother Dolcino led his people through times of tremendous papal persecution.55
One of the group wrote the following astonishing words:
. . . [T]he Antichrist was coming into this world within the bounds of the said three and
a half years; and after he had come, then he [Dolcino] and his followers would be
transferred into Paradise, in which are Enoch and Elijah. And in this way they will be
preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist.56
Thus, the writer of this History believed that Dolcino and his followers would be
transferred to paradise, expressing this belief with the Latin word transferrentur, the
past participle of which is used to derive the English word “translation,” a synonym
for rapture.57 Dolcino and his followers retreated into the mountains of northern Italy
to await their removal at the appearance of Antichrist. While Dolcino and many of
his followers were killed by a papal crusade in 1306, the movement lasted into the
fifteenth century.58
The Reformation Era
The Reformation in general is bleak with regard to prophetic teaching, as
evidenced by the lack of writings and commentaries on prophetic books.59 The
strongest statements concerning imminency during this period actually come from
Anabaptists, known as the Taufer, who drew their theology from the Scriptures more
160 The Master’s Seminary Journal
60George H. W illiam s, Spiritual and Anabaptist W riter s, vol. 25, Library of Christian Classics
(London: SCM, 1957) 19-40, identifies this element of the Radical Reformation as the Evangelical
Anabaptists, as distinct from the Spiritualists, R evolution aries, and the Evangelical Rationalists. The
Spiritualists and Revolutionaries, particularly, had elaborate futuristic views based on speculation.
61Balthasar Hu bmaier, “Apologia,” Ba lthasar Hubmaier, Theologia n of Anabap tism , trans. and eds.
H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1989) 541-43.
62For these and other examples of Calvin’s com men ts on the second advent, see J. Graham Miller,
Calvin’s Wisdom, An Anthology Arranged Alphabetically by a Grateful Reader (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1992) 336-38.
63George (Theology 323) quotes the great Pilgrim pastor, John Robinson (1576?-1625), commenting
soon after the passing on of Calvin, “The L ord hath yet m ore truth and light to break fo urth o ut of his holy
Word.”
64Thomas Ice, “Rapture, History of the,” Dictionary of Prem illennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch
(Grand R apids: Kregel, 1996) 346.
65Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:31-36 in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:560-67.
than other groups that bore the name Anabaptist.60 One such learned man was
Balthasar Hubmaier, who after rebuking his radical chiliastic contemporaries, then
says, “[A]lthough Christ gave us many signs whereby we can tell how near at hand
the day of his coming is, nevertheless, no one but God knows the exact day. . . .
Take heed, watch and pray; for you known either the day nor the hour. . . . [T]he
Judge is already standing at the door. . . .”61
Martin Luther and John Calvin also make similar statements concerning
imminency. Calvin, when commenting on Zechariah and Malachi, writes,
“Whenever the day of the Lord is mentioned in Scripture, let us know that God is
bound by no laws, that he should hasten his work according to our hasty wishes; but
the specific time is in his own power, and at his own will.” Commenting on Christ’s
teaching in the Gospels, he writes, “[Jesus] wishes [the disciples] to be uncertain as
to his coming, but to be prepared to expect him . . . every moment.”62 Truly, the
Lord’s return was one of the great undeveloped themes of the Reformation era.63
The Modern Period up to Darby
The modern period is usually understood as beginning in 1648 with the
final acceptance of the Protestant Reformation at the Peace of Westphalia. The
period saw the rebirth of premillennialism for at least three important reasons.64
•Due to the influence of Renaissance humanism, the Reformers went back
to the investigation of original written sources by the fathers and the
Scriptures. This gave them access to fresh and accurate Greek texts,
uncorrupted by the Vulgate traditions. It also exposed them to new editions
of the early fathers including the distinct premillennial teaching of
Irenaeus.65
•Much of the allegorical hermeneutic that dominated the Medieval period
was repudiated. Calvin particularly reintroduced exegetical exposition
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 161
66Consult “Calvin’s Method and Interpretation” and “Prolegomena to Exegesis,” T. H. L. Parker,
Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 2d ed. (Louisville, Ky.: Westminister/John Knox, 1993) 85-108,
192-205. See also Renald E. Showe rs, There Really is a Difference (Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel,
1990) 136.
67Luther performed all his deeds in the conviction that the Last Days were at hand, seeing the Pope
as the Antichrist. See Norman Co hn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London: Secker and Warburg, 1957)
26 1.
68James Orr, The Progress of Dogma (1901; reprint G reenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, n.d.) 21.
69Ibid., 22. Hannah (Our Legacy 29) enumerates seven areas in the historical progressive
articulation of d octrine ending with “The Doctrine of Last Things, or Eschatology (1650-present).”
70Ice, “Rapture” 346.
71Robert G. Clouse, “Joseph Mede (1586-1638),” in The New International Dictionary of the
Christian C hurch, ed. J. D. Douglas, rev. ed.(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 646.
back into the church.66
•Many Reformers contacted Jewish sources and had learned Hebrew. This
moved many of the Reformers to take passages concerning Israel more
historically rather than continuing to take them allegorically. This led to
more historical or realized eschatological positions among the Reformers.67
Futurist interpretations including premillennialism began to be more
prominent in the church as noted earlier.
This more recent focus on premillennial thought in the late 1500s and early 1600s
is not surprising. James Orr makes an astute observation concerning the way various
doctrines have been the focus of interest and development at various periods of time.
He writes, “[T]he articulation of the system [of dogma] in text-books is the very
articulation of the system [of dogma] in its development in history.”68 Theological
articulation moves from Prolegomena to Theology Proper, to Anthropology, to
Christology, to Soteriology, and finally to Eschatology as the last major doctrine to
be clarified. Orr speaks of law and reason underlying this development with the law
having both a logical and historical development.69 It is very significant that God in
His providence brought into the church a rich development of eschatology. The
following is a brief survey of pretribulational thinking that occurs during this period.
Joseph Mede (1586-1638)
Mede is considered the “father of English premillennialism,”70 having
written Clavis Apocalyptica (“Key of the Revelation”) in 1627 in which “He
attempted to construct an outline of the Apocalypse based solely upon internal
considerations. In this interpretation he advocated premillennialism in such a
scholarly way that this work continued to influence eschatological interpretation for
centuries.”71
162 The Master’s Seminary Journal
72Paul B oyer, When Time Shall Be No More (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1992) 75.
73Robert G. Clouse, “Jurieu, Pierre (1637-1713),” The New International Dictionary 557.
74Paul N. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy (Chicago: Moody, 1995) 197-98; see also
Grant R. Jeffrey, “Was the PreTrib Position of the Rapture Seen Before John Darby” (unpublished paper
presented at the Pretrib Study Group, Dallas, Tex., 1993) 2-3.
75Robert G. Clouse, “John Gill (1697-1771),” The New Dictionary 413.
76John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testam ent, 2 vols. (London:William Hill Collingridge, 1853)
2:561.
Increase Mather (1639-1723)
This theologian and president of Harvard College (1685) was a significant
American Puritan. Concerning the future coming of Christ, he wrote that the saints
would “be caught up into the air” beforehand, thereby escaping the final conflagra-
tion.72
Peter Jurieu (1637-1713)
Jurieu was a “prominent theologian and apologist in the French Reformed
Church. He came to believe that Calvinists would be restored to France, because of
his interpretation of the prophecies of the Apocalypse.”73 In his work, Approaching
Deliverance of the Church (1687), he taught that “Christ would come in the air to
rapture the saints and return to heaven before the battle of Armageddon. He spoke
of a secret rapture prior to His coming in glory and judgement at Armageddon.”74
John Gill (1697-1771)
Gill was a profound scholar, Calvinist theologian, and Baptist minister at
Horsleydown, Southwark, for over fifty years.75 He published his An Exposition of
the New Testament in three volumes between 1746-48. In his commentary on 1
Thess 4:15 he wrote,
The Apostle having something new and extraordinary to deliver, concerning the coming
of Christ, the first resurrection, of the resurrection of the saints, the change of the living
saints, and the rapture both of the raised, and living in the clouds to meet Christ in the air,
expresses itself in this manner. The dead saints will rise before the living ones are
changed, and both will be caught up together to meet the Lord.76
Concerning 1 Thess 4:17 he comments,
Suddenly, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, and with force and power; by the
power of Christ, and by the ministry and means of the holy angels; and to which rapture
will contribute the agility, which the bodies both of the raised and changed saints will
have; and the rapture of the living saints will be together with them; with the dead in
Christ, that will then be raised; so that the one will not prevent the other, or the one be
sooner with Christ than the other; but one being raised and the other changed, they’ll be
joined in one company and general assembly, and be rapt up together: in the clouds; the
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 163
77Ibid.
78Jeffrey, “A Pretrib Rapture Statement” 121-22.
79Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy 198. Scott taught that “the righteous will be carried
into heaven, wh ere they will be secure until the time of th e judgement is over.”
80Thomas Ice, “Morgan Edwards: Another Pre-Darby Rapturist,” The Thomas Ice Collection
(<http://www.according2prophecy.org/apredarby.html>) 1. See also, Frank Marotta, Morgan Edwards:
An Eighteenth Centruy Pretribu lation ist (Elkton , Md.: n.p., n.d.).
81Ibid., 2.
same clouds perhaps in which Christ will come, will be let down to take them up.77
As Jeffrey observes, “there is some ambiguity in Dr. Gill’s 1748 teaching of the
timing and sequence of prophetic events.” Yet Jeffrey notes many important
conclusions, including
•The Lord will descend in the air.
•The saints will be raptured in the air to meet Him.
•Christ will preserve the saints with Him until the general conflagration and
burning of the world is over.
•The saints will reign with Christ for a thousand years.78
Similar pretribulational views can be found in commentaries by Philip Doddridge
(1702-1751), James MacKnight (1721-1800), and Thomas Scott (1747-1821).79
Morgan Edwards (1722-1795)
Edwards was a Baptist preacher, evangelist, historian and educator, having
founded Rhode Island College (Brown University). During his student days at
Bristol Baptist Seminary in England (1742-44), he wrote an essay on Bible
prophecy. The essay was published in Philadelphia in 1788 as Two Academical
Exercises on Subjects Bearing the following Titles; Millennium, Last-Novelties.
After a careful examination of this document, Thomas Ice concludes the following
about Edwards’ position on the rapture from his statement, “The distance between
the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years.”80
•He believes that 1,003.5 years will transpire between resurrections.
•He associates the first resurrection with the rapture of 1 Thess 4:17,
occurring at least 3.5 years before the start of the millennium.
•He associates the meeting of believers with Christ in the air with John 14:2.
•He sees believers disappearing during the time of the tribulation.81
Concluding Analysis
Critics of rapture history who have argued that belief in the pretribulational
rapture was not enbraced before John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) deny the clear
164 The Master’s Seminary Journal
82Blessed Hope 31.
83John L. Bray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, Fla.: John L. Bray
Ministries, 1980) 30-31.
84For a brief survey of his life and thought, see Floyd Elmore, “J. N. Darby’s Early Years,” in When
the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Ice and Demy 127-59.
85Ibid., 132.
86F. Roy Co ad, A History of the Brethren Movement (Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1968) 129-30.
testimony of theologians and commentators of earlier periods. The clear statements
of Pseudo-Ephraem, John Gill, and others now make clear that pretribulationism has
had a long and credible history of people who understood it,, taught it, and who lived
their lives in light of it. George Ladd is no longer credible when he writes, “We can
find no trace of pretribulationism in the early church, and no modern pretribulationist
has successfully proved that this particular doctrine was held by any of the church
fathers or students of the W ord before the nineteenth century.”82 Rapture critic John
Bray makes a similar inappropriate comment in the form of an offer.
People who are teaching the pretribulation rapture teaching today are teaching something
that never was taught until 1812. . . . Not one of the early church fathers taught a
pretribulational rapture. . . . I make the offer of five hundred dollars to anybody who will
find a statement, a sermon, article in a commentary, or anything, prior to 1812 that taught
a 2 phase coming of Christ separated by a stated period of time, such as the pretribulation
rapturists teach.83
It is time for Mr. Bray to make good on his $500.00 offer!
The Modern Period from Darby to the Present
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)
Darby was a man of significant influence in the shift from historicism to
futurism in premillenialial thought and the modern force behind the development of
dispensationalism. Darby was well educated and had a fruitful ministry in the
Church of England up until 1826.84 After much consideration and a series of
providential circumstances, Darby broke with the Anglican church in 1828-29,
envisioning “A spiritual church, joined to a heavenly Christ, indwelt and empowered
by the Holy Spirit, and awaiting their Lord’s return.”85 Darby soon began to teach
openly an Israel-church distinction and a two-stage distinction in the second coming
of Christ. This included a quiet appearance of Christ to remove all true Christians
from the earth (the presence of Christ), followed by the removal of the restraining
work of the Holy Spirit from the earth and the reign of Antichrist, after which would
be the public appearing of Christ in glory. The pretribulational rapture view which
Darby had discovered while in Bible study between 1826-27, was later supported by
Edward Irving (1792-1834) and challenged by B. W. Newton.86 His views of the
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 165
87See John M’Culloch, “Brethern (Plymouth),” En cyclopaedia of Religion an d Ethics, ed. James
Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928) 2:843-48.
88Richard R. Reiter (“A History of the Development of the Rapture Positions,” The Rapture 12)
notes, “Many readers concluded that pretribulatinoalism held by many Plymouth Brethren in Britain was
adop ted wholesale by the [N iagara] conference.”
89C. I. Scofield, Addresses on Prophecy (New York: A.C. Gaebelein, 1902) 89-103.
90See ibid., 11-34, for a helpful history of this period. Also note the respective articles in Couch,
ed., Dictionary of Premillennial Theology.
91Hal Lindsey and C. C. Carlson, The Late Great Planet E arth ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970).
Also, for a general history of this period, see ibid, 35-44.
church and especially his prophetic teaching spread like wildfire through the
Plymouth Brethren movement, and after a visit America, they became popular
throughout American evangelicalism.87 Two early proponents of Darby’s views in
America were James H. Brookes (1830-97) and J. R. Graves (1820-89).
Post Darby Period
The pretribulational position spread through influence of the Niagra Bible
Conference era (New York, 1878-1909)88 and received wide exposure in the popular
prophetic publications, The Truth, Our Hope, The Watchword, and Maranatha. It
was also carried forward in William Backstone’s book, Jesus is Coming (1909), and
the work of C. I. Schofield in his popular Scofield Reference Bible (1909), published
in Britain and America, and other works.89 Prominent pretribulational Bible teachers
articulated the position on the Bible conference circuit, in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries including Arno C. Gaebelein (1861-1945), A. J. Gordon
(1836-1895), James M. Gray (1851-1935), R. A. Torrey (1856-1928), Harry Ironside
(1876-1951), John F. Strombeck (1881-1959), Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952),
Alva J. McClain (1888-1968), Clarence E. Mason, Jr., Charles Lee Feinberg (1909-
1995), J. Dwight Pentecost (1915- ), John F. W alvoord (1910- ), Gerald B. Stanton
(1918- ), and Charles Ryrie (1925- ). During this period, critics attacked it as the
“any-moment theory.”90
In the mid twentieth century almost every North American Bible institute,
Bible college, and evangelical seminary expounded dispensational pretribulational-
ism. This included Moody Bible Institute, Philadelphia College of Bible, The Bible
Institute of Los Angeles, Talbot Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological
Seminary, and Grace Theological Seminary. Many evangelical denominations and
movements held to pretribulationism, including the Bible Presbyterian Church, The
Evangelical Free Church, the Fellowship of Grace Brethren, many independent Bible
churches, independent Baptist churches, and Pentecostal denominations including
Assemblies of God and Foursquare Gospel churches. The position was again
popularized in 1970 by Hal Lindsey.91
A resurgence of posttribulational thought after 1952 challenged
166 The Master’s Seminary Journal
92Geroge E. Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God.
93J. Barton Payne The Imminent A ppearing of Christ (Grand Rapids, 19 62).
94Robert H. G undry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). See John
A. Sproule, A Revised Review of “The Church and the Tribuilation” (Postgraduate Seminar: New
Testament Theology; Winona Lake, Ind.: Grace Theological Seminary, 1974; Birmingham, Ala:
Southeastern Bible College, n.d.).
95A little known example of this is M cC une, An Investigation and Criticism of “Historic”
Premillennialism from the Viewpoint of Dispensationalism.
96See notes in this article and the general bibliography (255-63) for the respective contributions of
these authors. See also publications of the Pre-Trib Research Center (P.O Box 14111, Arlington, Tex.
76094-111; e-mail <icet@711online.net>).
97In order of publication, Da ve MacPherson, The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin (Kansas City, Mo.:
Heart of America B ible Society, 1973), The Late Great Pre-Trib Rapture (Kansas City, Mo.: Heart of
America Bible Society, 1974), The In credible Cover-up, the True Story on the Pre-Trib Rapture
(Plainfield: Logos Internation al, 1975), The Great Rapture Hoax (Fletcher, N.C.: New Puritan Library,
1983), The Rapture Plot (Sim pso nville, S.C.: M illennium III Pu blishers, 1995).
98Adequate assessments of MacPherson may be found in Thomas D. Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the
Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with Margaret Macdonald,” BSac 147 (1990):155-68, and John
F. W alvoo rd, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 42-51.
99Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin”157.
pretribulationism with the writings of George Ladd (1911-1982),92 J. Barton Payne
(1922-1979),93 and Robert Gundry (1932- ).94 These challenges have prompted
excellent responses which have added credibility to the pretribulational rapture
view.95
In the past decade have come new important works supporting
pretribulationism, including those by Paul Benware, Mal Couch, Larry Crutchfield,
Timothy Demy, Paul Feinberg, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Grant Jeffrey, Thomas Ice,
Paul S. Karleen, Renald Showers, and Robert Thomas.96
David MacPherson, a Less Than Credible Side Issue
David MacPherson has now published five books, all setting forth the same
contrived view of the origin of the pretribulational rapture.97 Having first made his
assertions, MacPherson approaches his subject looking for proof. He uses his skills
as a former investigative newsman to assemble selectively huge amounts of data,
presenting his view with a vindictive, preachy, sarcastic tone.98 MacPherson
aggressively attacks pretribulationism by attributing its origin to Margaret
MacDonald, as a result of a prophetic revelation she had in the spring of 1830, at the
age of fifteen. Margaret was attracted to the charismatic influence of the Irvingite
Movement by 1830 and her pretribulational rapture vision was recorded and
published by Robert Norton in 1861. “MacPherson uses this finding to project the
notion that the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture is of demonic origin through
15-year-old Scottish lassie.”99 MacPherson then claims that J. N. Darby and the
Plymouth Brethren, who taught the pre-trib view, received it from Margaret
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 167
100MacP herson, The Rapture Plot 87-120.
101See Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin” 158-61.
102John L B ray, The Origin of the Pre-Tribulational Rapture Teaching (Lakeland, Fla.: Christian
Chiliasm; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 250. Charles R. Smith, “Review of Un believable Pre-Trib
Origin, by Dave MacPherson,” Grace Spire (May-June,1974):9.
103Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin” 161-63.
104Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-
1930 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970) 64.
105F. F. Bruce, “Review of The Unbelievable Pre-T rib Origin , Dave M acPherson,” Evangelical
Quarterly 47 (1975):58.
106Note Robert G undry’s endorsement on the cover of The Rapture Plot, “As usual, Dave
MacPherson overwhelms his critics with a superior knowledge of the primary sources. His is a rare
comb ination of historical research and investigative reporting.”
MacDonald after 1830. MacPherson then asserts that an elaborate plot was devised
by Darby, William Kelly (1821-1906), and others to cover up the origin.100
The reality of MacPherson’s five books is that he has still not produced the
evidence for his claims and what he does offer has fundamental flaws.101
•Margaret MacDonald does not teach a pretribulational rapture in her
prophecy and thus she could not give to Darby what she never believed
herself. Even anti-tribulationist John Bray acknowledges this!102
•MacPherson amasses an overwhelming amount of evidence that does not
relate to his case, but which serves as a kind of smoke screen around the
edges.
•Darby developed his view in 1826-27, at least three years before MacDon-
ald’s vision! His visit with Margaret in 1830 was of no consequence.
•The Brethren were not united on this issue, so Newton, Mueller, and
Tregelles would certainly have exposed such a fraud on Darby’s part.
MacPherson engages in biased revisionism. No major scholar familiar with original
sources has sided with him.103 Sandeen calls it a “groundless and pernicious
charge.”104 F. F. Bruce, himself a Brethren author, writes, “Where did Darby get [his
view]? . . . [I]t was in the air in the 1820s and 1830s among eager Bible students of
unfulfilled prophecy. . . . [D]irect dependence by Darby on Margaret MacDonald is
unlikely.”105 It appears that MacPherson’s converts are rabid anti-pretriublationists
because McPherson has “proved” only what he set out to find.106
Concluding Remarks
It is important to point out that judgment of the credibility of the
pretribulational rapture is whether it is found in the Scriptures! Though history
informs one’s interpretation of Scripture, it should not drive his interpretation. The
real source of the pretribulational rapture will be developed in the ensuing articles
168 The Master’s Seminary Journal
107Ice, “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin” 166.
108Ibid.
109Ibid., 166-68.
of this issue of TMSJ. Church history records a long and at times painful develop-
ment of the articulation of the doctrine. As pointed out earlier, such is also the case
with Christology, soteriology, and other doctrines as well. The following is a brief
summary of the history of doctrine as it relates to the pretribulational rapture:
•The apostolic fathers were premillennial but the details and implications of
the rapture doctrine were not worked out.
•By the fifth century the amillenialism of Origen and Augustine had all but
eliminated premillenialism.
•This continued through the Reformation with the Reformers preferring to
ignore the millennium rather than teach against it. They were more “no-
mil” than “a-mil.”
•The seventeenth century brings a rebirth of premillenialism. Along with
it flourished postmillenialsm until the end of the French Revolution (1789).
After 1800, premillenialism made a great surge but was still dominated by
historical schools of interpretation.
•By 1826 literal interpretation of prophecy took hold and “futurism” saw the
light of day!107
Ice concludes, “This environment of a literal, futurist, premillennial framework
interacting with the progress made by systematic theology provided the momentum
that led to the understanding of the pre-tribulational rapture.”108 In the providence
of God, the early eighteen hundreds became the first time since before the rise of
allegorical interpretation that a climate existed conducive to the development of the
doctrine of the pretribulational rapture. Features of this period include:
•The thriving of premillennialism which gave rise to pretribulationism.
•The return of premillennialism brought with it the application of literal,
normal hermeneutics to prophetic passages of Scripture such as Daniel and
Revelation. A literal hermeneutic leads to futurism in interpretation.
•The return to a strong belief in imminency just as was seen in the early
centuries.
•These teachings of imminency and a pretribulational rapture received wide
acceptance.109
In conclusion, this historical study leaves two striking realities:
•That dispensational premillennialism with its articulation of a
pretribulational rapture is recent, and
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 169
110Benw are, Understanding End Times Prophecy 164-87.
111W alvoo rd, The Rapture Question 97-113.
112Gleason L. Archer, “The Case for the Mid-S eventieth-W eek Raptu re Position ,” The Rapture 113-
46.
113Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990);
Robert Van Kampen, The Sign of Christ’s Coming and the End of the Age (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
1992).
•That history is normative to (i.e., sets the standards for) the truthfulness of
doctrine.
Five Premillennial Views of the Rapture
Once premillenialism is embraced there are five views held concerning the
rapture. The following is a brief identification of these views to serve as a reference
point for further study in this series of articles.
Pretribulationalism—a major view
This view holds to the supernatural removal of the church out of the world
before the tribulation (70th week of Daniel) begins. It has the following main
features: (1) it maintains a clear distinction between Israel and the church; (2) the
church is exempted from the wrath of God (1 Thess 5:9); (3) it maintains imminency
concerning the coming of Christ; and (4) it distinguishes between the rapture and the
second coming.110
Partial Rapture View—a minor view
This view holds that only faithful, spiritual Christians will be taken by
Christ at the rapture. Thus only those who are “watching and waiting” are taken.
The rest will repent of their carnality during the tribulation. Matthew 24:40-51 is
interpreted as “be on alert.” Issues related to the doctrine of salvation and divisions
of the body of Christ plague this view.111
Midtribulational Rapture View—another minor view
This view teaches that the rapture will take place at the midpoint of the
seven-year tribulation or after 31/2 years. The view holds that only the last half of
Daniel’s seventieth week is tribulation.112 The position struggles for convincing
texts. Though asserting that only the last half of the tribulation contains judgement,
they struggle to deal with the fact that God pours out His wrath through the entire
70th week.
Pre-Wrath Rapture View—another minor view
This view was recently developed and popularized by Marvin Rosenthal
and Robert Van Kampen.113 The view holds that the church will be raptured about
170 The Master’s Seminary Journal
114Paul S. K arleen, The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church, Is It Biblical? (Langhoren, Pa: BF Press,
1991) 88-91.
three quarters of the way through the seventieth week of Daniel. The view divides
the tribulation period up into (1) the beginning of sorrows, (2) the great tribulation,
and (3) the Day of the Lord. The third period is the time of God’s wrath from which
Christians will be spared. This threefold division creates numerous and significant
linguistic, exegetical, and theological problems regarding the seven-year length of
God’s wrath and the length of the Day of the Lord.114
The Rapture in Twenty Centuries of Biblical Interpretation 171
115In addition to references cited above, see, Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry, The Great
Tribulation Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids: K regel, 199 9).
116See Reiter et.al, The Rapture 169-232.
117Walvoord, The Blessed Hope 21-69; Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy 190-92..
118Payne, Imminent Appearing.
119Ice, “Introduction,” The Great Tribulation 7.
120Gundry, The Church.
Posttribulational Rapture—a major view
This view has been widely popularized by Ladd, Gundy, and others.115 It
holds that the rapture occurs at the end of the great tribulation period, when Christ
returns. Posttribuilationism differs from pretribulationism on several basic issues:
(1) the nature of the tribulation, (2) the distinction between Israel and the church, (3)
the doctrine of imminency, (4) the distinction between the rapture and the second
coming, (5) the meaning of eschatological terms, and (6) sometimes hermeneutical
issues.116 There are four distinct positions within this view.117
•Classic posttribulationism or historic premillennialsim. Here the events of
the tribulation are understood to have always been in place and the church
is already under God’s wrath. Christ’s return is “imminent,” but the view
relies on both allegorical and literal hermeneutics. This is the view of J.
Barton Payne,118 and is sometimes known as moderate preterism as well.119
•Semiclassic posttribulationism This view also holds that the tribulation is
a contemporary event but teaches that some events of the tribulation are
still future. The view forsakes imminency and also draws on conflicting
hermeneutical principles. There are considerable differences between
proponents of this view. This is a kind of catch-all view for those who do
not fit the other catagories.
•Futurist posttribulational view. A relatively new but very popular view
held by George Ladd and others. This view holds to a future seven-year
tribulation followed immediately by the second coming. The church goes
through the entire tribulation and the Israel/church distinction is blurred.
Hermeneutics are more literal in this view.
•Dispensational posttribulation. This is the view of Robert Gundry120 who
attempts to keep the distinction between Israel and the church clear, while
believing that the church will live through all seven years of tribulation. At
the same time he believes that the church will also in some way be
“exempt” from God’s wrath. In this view, imminency is aggressively
denied.
These views mutually exclude each other so that they cannot be combined. The
posttribulational view puts great confidence in the length of time during which it has
172 The Master’s Seminary Journal
been held. The view suffers in its understanding of wrath during the entire
tribulation period as evident in the views above. These views also blur the distinction
between Israel and the church and make the rapture and second coming into one
event, despite their dissimilarities in Scripture. Again, the imminency of the Lord’s
return is lost.
Conclusion
The Scriptures are clear about Jesus’ coming, once in a manger and once
in two phases, i.e., at the rapture and at the second coming. Though this view is
strong and cogent today, it has suffered from the lack of development and clear
articulation as have other doctrines in history. It is under attack from those who
choose not to see future prophecies fulfilled in the same way that all past prophecies
have been fulfilled. It is also under attack from those who use history to drive
interpretation and those with different hermeneutical or interpretive pre-commit-
ments when they approach Bible prophecy. Finally, it is worthy of deeper study,
clearer argumentation, and fervent protection. May this series of articles strengthen,
protect, and proclaim the marvelous truth of the imminent return of Christ to rapture
his church before the 70th week of Daniel begins.
1Of course, the book of Revelation is the “Revelation of Jesus Christ” as well (Rev. 1:1).
173
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 173-190
INTERPRETIVE FLAWS IN THE OLIVET DISCOURSE
Larry D. Pettegrew
Professor of Theology
The Olivet Discourse as the ultimate exposition of events related to the
future of Israel has been a proving ground where incorrect rapture systems have
gone astray. A survey of the Discourse starts with the backdrop of a scathing rebuke
and proceeds to note the stunned disciples, the doomed temple, the timing question,
the unexpected delay, the great tribulation, the second coming, and the application.
The first of three erring rapture systems, posttribulationism, understands the
Discourse to focus on the church, but the larger context and the immediate context
demonstrate conclusively that Israel is the main focus. The pre-wrath system is the
second erring interpretation when it misconstrues Matt 24:22 and its mention of the
shortening of the great tribulation. The third erring system is preterism with its
teaching that the Discourse was in the main fulfilled in events around A.D. 70.
Preterism falters hermeneutically in its non-literal interpretation of the prophecy.
Pretribulationism responds to the hermeneutical fallacies by interpreting “this
generation” in Matt 24:34 to refer to the generation alive when events of the great
tribulation take place. Consistent pretribulationism understands “one taken, one
left” and “the fig tree” to refer to events pertaining to the second coming, not the
rapture of the church.
* * * * *
At first glance, it might seem strange to focus on the Olivet Discourse in
a series on the rapture since the rapture is not found in this passage. Why pick this
particular passage that does not discuss the rapture when there are many more that
do not, as well as several that do? The answer is at least threefold.
First, the Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24–25 and parallel passages
in Mark and Luke is of vital importance because of who the author is. This is the
Lord’s ultimate exposition of future events during His time on earth.1 Second, the
Olivet Discourse gives an outline of the future of Israel—a people at the center of
174 The Master’s Seminary Journal
2Other pretribulational studies of the various rapture systems’ approach to the Olivet Discourse
include Stanley D. Toussaint, “Are the Church and the Rapture in Matthew 24?” in The Return, eds.
Thomas Ice and Timothy J. Demy (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999) 121-36; and Bruce A. Ware, “Is the
Church in View in Matthew 24-25?” BSac 138 (April-June 19 81):158-72. Tou ssaint’s study interacts
especially with the pre-wrath view. Ware’s study focuses especially on the posttribulationism of Robert
Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973). For a full-length study of
the Olivet Disco urse, see Jo hn F. M acA rthu r, The Second Coming (Wheaton , Ill.: Crossway, 1999).
Also, an excellent series of essays on the Olivet Discourse is presented in Israel My Glory 52/2
(April/May 199 4). Authors include Will Varner, M ark R obinson, Elwood McQuaid, Fred Harftman,
Renald Showers, and David M. Levy.
3Another way to approach the Olivet Discourse is to compare futurism, preterism, traditional
preterist-futurism, and revised preterist-futurism. See David L. Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of
Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments,” Grace Theological Journal 10/1 (1989):3-
27.
much of biblical eschatology. Third, from a negative side, the Olivet Discourse is
important because all incorrect rapture systems go astray in this passage. The Olivet
Discourse is thus a monumental passage for the doctrine of eschatology.
It is impossible, of course, to give a detailed exposition of these two
chapters in a brief essay, so the essay’s objectives are somewhat limited.2 The
procedure will be twofold. First will come a survey of the Olivet Discourse in order
to grasp the Lord’s flow of thought in the Discourse. Of course, the survey must
assume an eschatological viewpoint, which is pretribulational premillennialism.
Second, with the survey as a backdrop, the article will consider the interpretive flaws
in three other eschatological systems.3 The goal is not to refute any one of these
systems in detail, but to point out some of the defects in interpreting the Olivet
Discourse. In addition, the study will attempt to demonstrate the benefits of a
consistent pretribulational understanding of the Olivet Discourse.
THE SURVEY
The Scathing Rebuke—Matthew 23
The Lord’s exposition of the future is given on the Mount of Olives near
the end of His ministry on earth. In the immediately preceding context, He fiercely
rebukes the unbelief found in that generation of Israelites, especially the hypocrisy
imbedded in their religious leaders. He concludes His denunciation of them with a
curse on the Jerusalem temple, the center of first-century Judaism: “See! Your
house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say,
‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (Matt 23:38-39, NKJV).
The Stunned Disciples—Matt 24:1
The disciples were clearly taken back by such a condemnation of the
temple. In the first place, the temple was in many ways the patriotic symbol that
evidenced the solidarity of Israel. Moreover, the Lord’s statement no doubt
reminded them of Yahweh’s warning immediately before Solomon’s temple was
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 175
destroyed by the Babylonians. Concerning that temple, Jeremiah records Yahweh
as saying, “I swear by Myself . . . that this house shall become a desolation” (Jer
22:5, NKJV).
So, in their nervous confusion, the disciples point out the magnificence of
the temple (Matt 24:1)—and Herod’s temple was a glorious building indeed. It was
constructed of huge white marble stones plated with gold. Some of the stones, in
fact, weighed as much as 100 tons, and shined so brightly in the sun that people
could hardly look at them. The rabbis insisted, “He who has not seen Herod’s
Temple has not seen a beautiful building.” So the disciples could hardly believe
their ears. “Did we hear you correctly, Lord? Will this marvelous temple be made
desolate?”
The Doomed Temple—Matt 24:2
The Lord’s answer was unequivocal. “Do you not see all these things?
Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not
be thrown down” (24:2, NKJV). And so it was some 40 years later, the Roman
legions, led by the emperor’s son, Titus, destroyed the temple and the city.
According to Josephus, the city was ruined to such an extent that one could hardly
tell that the area had been previously inhabited.
The Timing Questions—Matt 24:3
The disciples, however, knew nothing about the events of A.D. 70. What
they heard from Jesus was not at all what they had expected when the Messiah came.
So, when they arrived on the Mount of Olives, they asked Him three questions about
the future of Israel—specifically about the relationship of the destruction of the
temple to the second coming and future Kingdom. Matthew records, “Now as He
sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, ‘Tell us,
when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the
end of the age?’” (24:3, NKJV). The rest of the teaching in M atthew 24–25, as well
as the parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21, is devoted to Jesus’ answers to
these questions.
The Unexpected Delay—Matt 24:4-14
The Lord first explains that, in contrast to what the disciples had thought,
His Kingdom on earth would not begin immediately. The great Messianic Kingdom
promised by the OT prophets was to be delayed, and instead there would be a period
characterized by false Christs, wars, famines, earthquakes, persecutions, false
religions, secularism, as well as the preaching of the gospel. Such events would
typify the era from the time of the Lord’s prophecy up to the middle of the seven-
year tribulation.
The Great Tribulation—Matt 24:15-22
But the last half of the tribulation would be even more horrendous.
According to Christ, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been
176 The Master’s Seminary Journal
4Some 60 years later, the Apostle John who was present to hear the Olivet Discourse from his Lo rd
was given the details of this future horrible time on earth (R ev. 4–18).
5For the differences between the rapture and the second coming, see Paul N. Benware,
Understanding End Times Prophecy (Chicago: Moody, 1995) 179-81. Benware also has a helpful
critique of the pre-wrath view (221-41).
6Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41” 27.
7For an excellent study of the Sheep and Goats judgment, see Eugene W. Pond’s three-part series:
“The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and Goats,” BSac 159 (April-June 2002):201-
20; “Who Are the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46?,” BSac 159 (July-September, 2002):288-301;
and “Who Are ‘the Least of My Brethren’?,” forthcoming in BSac 159 (October-December, 2002).
since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be”4 (24:21,
NKJV). In this great tribulation, the Lord judges the earth and the unbelieving
peoples of the earth, and prepares the nation of Israel spiritually for His second
coming and His setting up of the Kingdom
The Second Coming—Matt 24:23-31
Concerning His second coming, Christ explains,
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon
will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will
be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes
of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven
with power and great glory (24:29-30, NKJV).
These verses do not describe the rapture of the church, but the glorious coming of
Christ at the end of the tribulation to establish His Kingdom.5
The Application—Matt 24:32-25:46
The description of the second coming of Christ to earth is followed by a
series of parables and illustrations emphasizing the need to be prepared, alert, and
serving the Lord in anticipation of His coming. David Turner points out, “Jesus
spent only half as much time on the bare facts of the future as he did on the
implications of those facts.”6 Chapter 25 explains that at the coming of Christ, there
will be a judgment on believing Israel as well as on the Gentile nations of the world.
As a result of these judgments, believing Jews (the wise virgins) and believing
Gentiles (the sheep) will “inherit the kingdom prepared . . . from the foundation of
the world” (25:34, NKJV).7 Unbelieving Jews (the foolish virgins) and unbelieving
Gentiles (the goats) “will go away into everlasting punishment” (25:46, NKJV).
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 177
8It is difficult to classify the rapture systems of most of the early church fathers. Some of the early
fathers w ho were posttribu lational see m to be intra-tribulationists. They believed that they were in the
tribulation already, that the tribulation was of indeterminate length (not 7 years), and that Christ would
rapture the church at the end of the tribu latio n. Thus, for the m, the rapture was imminent. In the
twentieth century, J. Barton Payne w as the main, and almo st only evang elical w riter, who held to this
form of “ historic premillennialism.” See J . Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearance of Christ (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962). For a helpful study of different kinds of posttribulationism, see John
Walvoo rd, The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976 ).
9For a defense of the type of posttribulationism held by most posttribulationists today, see George
Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 195 6). For a defense of the historic nature of
pretribulationism, see Larry V. Crutchfield, “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic
Fathers,” in The Return, 75-93. In the same book, see Timothy Demy and Thomas Ice, “The Rapture and
an Early Medieval Citation” 55-73. Also see Francis Gumerlock, “A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth
Century,” BSac 159 (July-September, 2002):349-62.
THE SYSTEMS
The preceding survey provides a backdrop for evaluating other rapture
systems, specifically, posttribulationism, pre-wrath, and preterism. Then the essay
will briefly evaluate two passages that are problems for some pretribulationists.
Posttribulationism
Posttribulationism is the view that the church will be raptured at the end of
the seven-year tribulation period. It is held in various forms by some premillennial-
ists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists, though attention will focus primarily on
premillennial posttribulationism. Often posttribulationists claim to be the traditional
view of the church, using the term, “historic premillennialism.” This, however, is
doubtful.8 The most common contemporary form of posttribulationism that views
the tribulation as a future seven-year period is no more “historic” than contemporary
pretribulationism.9
Discourse Focus
In explaining the Olivet Discourse, posttribulationists teach that Jesus
describes the tribulation up through Matt 24:29, and that a posttribulational rapture
is depicted in verses 30-31. This is in contrast to pretribulationists who believe
Christ presents the second coming here without a reference to a rapture. According
to posttribulationists, the rapture is described again in 24:40-42, where the Lord
speaks of two men in the field, with the one taken and the other left; and two women
at the mill, with one taken and the other left. Since the descriptions there follow the
tribulation discussion, posttribulationists insist that this passage must describe a
posttribulational rapture.
In order for the posttribulational view to find support in the Olivet
Discourse, posttribulationists need to demonstrate that Jesus is explaining the future
of the church, not the future of Israel. Otherwise, the Discourse could give no
178 The Master’s Seminary Journal
10Douglas J. Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position,” in The Rapture, Pre-, Mid,-
or Post-Tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 192. This is a helpful book detailing the
different views of the three rapture systems. Authors include Gleason L . Archer, Jr., Paul D. Feinberg,
Douglas J. Moo, and Richard R. Reiter. For an interesting evaluation of the debate between
pretribulationist Paul Feinberg and posttribulationist Douglas Moo, see John S. Feinberg, “Arguing for
the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How?,” in When the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Thomas Ice and
Timothy Demy (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995) 187-210.
11Payne, The Imminent Appearance of Christ 55.
12Moo, “Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position” 192.
13Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation 131.
information about the rapture. Thus, posttribulationists argue that the disciples in
this passage represent the church, not believing Israel. As posttribulationist Douglas
Moo says, “Thus, the crucial question becomes: Whom do the disciples represent
in this passage—Israel or the church?”10 Two evenings later, when the Lord’s
Supper was instituted, they represent the church. So, why not here, asks
posttribulationist J. Barton Payne. “If they represented the church in Matthew 26 on
Thursday, no arbitrary exegesis can make them represent anything else in Matthew
24 on Tuesday.”11 “No one doubts,” writes Moo, “that the disciples in most
contexts of the gospels stand for Christians of all ages—or else why do we take
Jesus’ teaching as our own instruction? Only if the context clearly necessitates a
restriction should any narrowing of the audience be suggested.”12
Moreover, say the posttribulationists, since the church is mentioned in
Matthew 16:18 and 18:15-18, the bulk of Christ’s teaching in the gospels is directly
applicable to the church. Robert Gundry writes,
Pretribulationists further argue that the context of the Olivet Discourse stamps it
unmistakably with a Jewish impress. But we must take care not to miss the import of the
context by drawing a false deduction in dislodging the discourse from churchly teaching.
Rather, the context indicates that the Jewish nation has passed into a state of divine
disfavor because of their rejection of Jesus the Messiah. Since Jesus speaks from that
standpoint, we might think it better logic to conclude that the discourse relates to the
present dispensation characterized by Israel’s setting aside.13
Thus, the argument seems to unfold as follows:
1. The church is responsible for Jesus’ teaching.
2. The disciples were the original recipients of Jesus’ teaching.
3. Therefore, the disciples represent the church.
4. The nation of Israel has been set aside.
5. Therefore, the passage is explaining the rapture of the church.
Fatal Flaw: Contextual Subterfuge
Pretribulationists, however, point out that posttribulationists have missed
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 179
14David Turner, how ever, apparently a pretribu lationist, agrees with the posttribulationis ts at this
point. See “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41” 5-7.
15Leon Morris, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 115. Morris balances
this statement, “Matthew’s ‘Jewishness’ should not be stressed to the exclusion of another fe ature of this
Gospel, its universalism (8:11-12; 12:21; 21:43; 28:16-20)” (ibid.).
16R. V. G. Tasker, The G ospel According to St. Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries,
ed. R.V.G. Tasker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961) 18.
the point of the debate.14 The issue is not about to whom the discourse is applicable.
Of course, this passage, like all of Scripture, is applicable to the church. Matthew
expected, no doubt, that his book would be used as a teaching manual for the church
(Mat. 28:19-20). All Christians living in the present dispensation should find great
teaching and helpful information in this passage for their own lives. The issue,
however, is, What is Jesus talking about? Or more specifically, About whom is
Jesus teaching? And the answ er to this question found in the context of the passage
is believing Israel.
The Larger Context: The Book of Matthew. It is impossible to ignore the
Jewish flavor of the content of Matthew. In Leon Morris’ words, “There is a
‘Jewishness’ about this Gospel.”15 OT theology saturates the apologetic of the book.
First, Matthew proves that Christ was the rightful heir to the promises of the
Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants (1:1). Only Jesus could be the Messiah. Second,
Matthew wrote to present Christ as King of Israel in exact fulfillment of OT
prophecies. Third, Matthew wanted to describe Christ’s presentation of the
Messianic Kingdom in fulfillment of the OT prophets. His presentation was
supported by Jesus’ sinless life, miracles, and divine message. As Tasker says, “The
apologetic aim of the evangelist can be summed up in the sentence ‘Jesus is the
Messiah, and in Him Jewish prophecy is fulfilled.’”16
Of course, Matthew also wrote to show why Christ introduced the church.
It was because the Jew s of that generation, following their religious leaders, rejected
their Messiah. Therefore, Matthew explains how Christ introduced the concept of
a new entity: “I will build my church” (Matt 16:18). Thus, in the end, the gospel
of Christ is to be taken to the whole world. But the entire book is a study of the
presentation of the Kingdom to the nation of Israel and Israel’s refusal to accept it.
If there is one theme for the book, it would be found in Matthew 21:5: “Behold your
King is coming to you.” So, though the Olivet Discourse, as well as the whole book
of Matthew, is for the church, it is about the Messiah, His presentation of H is
Kingdom to Israel, Israel’s rejection of His Kingdom and upcoming judgment,
Christ’s second coming, and the future Messianic Kingdom. It is apparent that
Henry Thiessen was correct when he wrote, “Matthew wrote to encourage and
confirm the persecuted Jewish Christians in their faith, to confute their opponents,
and to prove to both that the Gospel was not a contradiction of the teaching of the
Old Testament, but rather a fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and to
180 The Master’s Seminary Journal
17Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand R apids: Eerdmans, 1943)
137.
18For example, they represent Israel in the commission given by Christ in Matthew 10; and they
represent the church in the commission given by Christ in Matt 28:19-20.
David.”17
The Immediate Context: The Disciples’ Question. But even more
significant is the immediate context. The whole Olivet Discourse is based on three
questions asked by Jesus’ disciples. So an investigation of the questions the
disciples asked tells whether Christ is describing the future of the church or of Israel.
As noted in the survey above, the setting for the Olivet Discourse is the
disciples’ consternation over the Lord’s denunciation of the Jerusalem temple. Thus
they pointed to the magnificence of the temple buildings (24:1). But Jesus replied
that all would be destroyed (24:2). The disciples then asked three questions, clearly
about the future of Israel (24:3):
1. When will the temple be destroyed?
2. What will be the sign of the second coming?
3. What will be the sign of the end of the present age and beginning of the
Kingdom age?
According to OT theology, these three events—the destruction of the temple, the
coming of Messiah, and the beginning of the Kingdom age—went together. In the
end times an attack on Jerusalem and the temple would come; Christ would return
and fight for Israel; the current age would end and the Messianic Kingdom would
be initiated (Zech 14:1-11). Of course, the disciples did not know that the temple
in Jerusalem would be destroyed more than once in the future. So, when Christ said
that the temple would be destroyed, they thought that the other two events would
follow.
But the point is that the disciples were not asking anything about the church
or the rapture. They knew next to nothing about either one. They knew only about
Israel, the temple, Jerusalem, the coming of the Messiah to earth, and the Kingdom.
Thus the issue as to whom the disciples represent is contrived by
posttribulationists. Actually, the disciples could represent the church on some
occasions and Israel on other occasions.18 But this is a false issue here. The issue
here is the immediate context. What did the disciples ask about? And the answer
is, they asked about the main events prophesied in the OT for the future of Israel.
And Christ answered those questions in His Discourse. Consistent pretribulationists
are correct in teaching that the rapture is not found in Matthew 24–25.
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 181
19See Robert D. Van Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1992); and Robert D. Van
Kampen, The Rapture Question Answered (Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell, 1997).
20This means that the earthquakes described in M atthew 24:7 (which Rosenthal thinks will occur
in the first half of the seven-year era) are the result of the powe r of Satan or m an. Toussaint observes,
“Interestingly, Rosenthal never explains how the earthquakes in Matthew 24:7 are triggered by hu mans!”
(Toussaint, “Are the Church and the Rapture in M atthew 24?” 133).
ISRAEL’S FUTURE FROM THE MOUNT OF OLIVES
SECOND COMING
A.D. 70 Tribulation Millennial Kingdom
Mount
of
Olives
Great Trib.
3½ 3½
Antichrist Abomination Judgments
signs of for
Covenant Desolation Kingdom
[Church in Entrance
existence, but
not the topic]
Pre-wrath
The pre-wrath rapture is a system devised recently by Marvin Rosenthal
and Robert Van Kampen.19 According to this view, the rapture takes place about
three-fourths of the way through the seven-year tribulation, though these authors
insist that we should not call the entire time period the “tribulation.” The tribulation
in this view is only the first three and one-half years of Daniel’s seventieth week.
God’s wrath is actually not poured out on the earth until about the last one-fourth of
the seven-year period. The troubles on the earth in the first three-fourths of this
period are not God’s wrath, according to the pre-wrath view, but are brought about
by Satan and man himself.20 Since God does not pour out His wrath until after the
rapture, the system is known as “pre-wrath.”
PRE-WRATH RAPTURE
Daniel’s 70th Week
182 The Master’s Seminary Journal
21Marvin R ose nthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Nelson, 1990) 112-13.
PRE-WRATH
RAPTURE
GOD’S
MIDPOINT WRATH
The Beginning
of Sorrows
The Great
Tribulation
The Day
of the Lord
² 3½ years ÷² 3½ years ÷
[[
Antichrist Abomination
signs of
Covenant Desolation
[Source of chart: Marvin Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church
(Nashville: Nelson, 1990) 61.]
Discourse Focus
The pre-wrath system looks to Matt 24:22 for support. “And unless those
days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days
will be shortened” (NKJV). Rosenthal explains,
To sum up, then, God will cut the Great Tribulation short; that is bring it to a conclusion
before the seventieth week is concluded. The Great Tribulation will be followed by
cosmic disturbance, which will indicate that the Day of the Lord is about to commence.
At that time God’s glory will be manifested. . . . First, the Rapture of the church will
occur; that will then be followed by the Lord’s judgment of the wicked as He begins His
physical return to earth.21
Fatal Flaw: Exegetical Short-sightedness
There are several problems with the pre-wrath understanding of this section
of the Olivet Discourse. First, as shown above, this passage does not deal with the
rapture of the church at all. It is a discussion of the future of Israel from the
viewpoint of believing Jews.
Second, “shortened” does not teach what Rosenthal says it does.
“Shortened” (¦6@8@$f20F"<, ekolobÇthsan), 3rd person plural, aorist, indicative
passive, from 6@8@$`T (koloboÇ), is correctly translated “shortened.” But the real
question asks, From what to what is the tribulation is shortened? First, it is shorter
than what Satan’s forces—the Antichrist and his associates—want. Gerhard Delling
writes, “That is, He has made it shorter than it would normally have been in terms
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 183
22Gerhard De lling , “6@8@$`T,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 3, ed. Gerhard
Kittel, trans. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 823-24.
23Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy 230.
24For critiques of the p re-wrath rapture system, see Paul S. Karleen, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the
Church: Is It Biblical? (Langhorne, Pa.: BF Press, 19 91); Renald E. Sho wers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture
View (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), especially 93-151; Toussaint, “Are the Church and the Rapture in
Matthew 24?” 133-35.
of the purpose and power of the oppressors.”22 It is also shorter than what the
wicked world deserves. If God were to pour out perfect judgment, no one would
survive. But God is merciful and thus limits the great tribulation to only 1260 days.
It will not go on indefinitely. Paul Benware writes,
So Jesus is teaching that the decree of God, made in eternity past, had already determined
that the Great Tribulation would be just three and a half years and not some longer period
of time. This interpretation is verified by noting what the Scriptures say about the length
of the Great Tribulation.23
Another flaw in the pre-wrath interpretation of Matthew 24:22 is its logical
failure to explain properly the reason that the great tribulation is shortened. The
reason given is that if it were not, no flesh would be saved. The point of the
Scripture is that when the great tribulation is over, something easier and better comes
on the scene. In the pre-wrath scheme, however, something more horrible
occurs—the Day of the Lord. If no flesh would have survived a continuation of the
great tribulation through the full forty-two months, surely no flesh would survive if
the great tribulation were to be cut short and followed by the awesome Day of the
Lord.
Moreover, Matthew 24:21 says that the great tribulation will be the worst
time ever. So, how can it be replaced by the Day of the Lord which is more horrible
in that it consists in God’s wrath on the world? In fact, the great tribulation (Matt
24:21) and the Day of the Lord (Dan 12:1; Jer 30:7) are both said to be the worst
time ever, so they must be the same time period or at least overlap one another. How
much better is the pretribulational interpretation of Matthew 24:22 which says that
when the great tribulation concludes at the end of 1,260 days, Christ returns,
judgment on the earth ceases, and the millennial Kingdom begins!24
Preterism
Preterism teaches that though the information in the Lord’s lecture on the
future of Israel was prophetic when He gave it, the prophecy has already been
fulfilled. There are at least three kinds of preterism. Thomas Ice writes,
Mild preterism holds that the Tribulation was fulfilled within the first three hundred years
of Christianity. . . . Moderate preterism . . . sees the Tribulation and the bulk of prophecy
as fulfilled in events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70;
184 The Master’s Seminary Journal
25Thomas Ice, “Introduction” to The Great Tribulation, Past or Future? (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1999) 7. In this book, two evangelicals debate the rapture question, Thomas Ice representing the
pretribulational view, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., representing a moderate preterism view.
26See John No, Beyond the End Times (Bradford, Pa.: International Preterist Association, 1999);
and No, Shattering the “Left Behind” Delusion (Bradford, Pa.: International Preterist Association,
2000).
27No, Beyond End T imes 253-54.
28Ibid., 255.
29Ice, The Great Tribulation, Past or Future? 7.
but they still hold to a future Second Coming, a physical resurrection of the dead, an end
to temporary history, and the establishing of the consummate new heaven and new earth.
Extreme or consistent (as they like to call themselves) preterism believes that the Second
Coming, and thus the resurrection of believers, is all past. For all practical purposes all
Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, and we are beyond the millennium and even now in
the new heaven and the new earth.25
Extreme preterists, such as John No, claim to be evangelical and believe
in the inerrancy of Scripture.26 But to maintain the view that essentially all of
prophecy has been fulfilled requires fanciful interpretation of key Scriptures. What
about 2 Pet 3:10? “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the
heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense
heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up” (NASB). Has this already
occurred? No says that this is talking about the conversion experience. “Individu-
ally, we become a ‘new heaven’ when God comes to dwell inside us, in our spirit.
. . . The ‘new heaven’ is the new spirit God gives a person at salvation (1 Cor. 3:16;
Eph. 2:6).”27 He continues, “That means that our former earth consists of our
unregenerated physical bodies, and our minds and emotions. This is what the Bible
calls our ‘flesh.’”28 Pretribulationist Thomas Ice says, “Both Dr. Gentry [a moderate
preterist] and I believe that such a position is heretical, for it denies a bodily
resurrection of believers and a future second coming of Christ.”29
Discourse Focus
Where do preterists get the idea that prophetic events are already past? In
Matthew 24, preterism emphasizes verse 34: “Assuredly, I say to you, this
generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (NKJV).
Preterism argues that “this generation” means the generation that was alive when
Jesus was on earth, and so everything recorded in the Olivet Discourse took place
by around A.D. 70.
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 185
30Ibid., 51.
31Gentry, The Great Tribulation, Past or Future? 54.
32Ibid., 60.
33Not all pretribulationists disagree with the preterist interpretation of “this generation.” See
Turner, “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41” 22-26.
34No, Beyond End Times 196. No asks, “But where does Scripture say that Jesus’ return must be
‘visible’?” (198). Such a question makes sense only if one allegorizes away such Scriptures as Acts 1:9-
11 and Matt 24:23-31.
Fatal Flaw: Hermeneutical Compromise
But once preterists have argued this point, they are in trouble because there
are several events in Matthew 24 that clearly have not happened. Thus they are
forced to spiritualize those events. All forms of preterism, some more than others,
have to rely on figurative interpretation. John No, for example, defends non-literal
interpretation of prophecy as follows: “The popular stream of endsayers has assumed
that the Bible’s apocalyptic language must be interpreted literally and physically,
and that since no one has witnessed a cataclysmic, earth-ending event of this nature,
its time must lie in the future.”30 The result of the compromise of the heremeneutical
integrity thus results in bizarre interpretations such as noted above of 2 Pet 3:10.
Preterists take much of the Olivet Discourse figuratively. Matt 24:27 reads,
“For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the
coming of the Son of Man be” (NKJV). Actually, the passage is teaching that
Christ’s coming will not be local only, but public and grandiose. But moderate
preterist Gentry says that the lightning is a picture of “the Roman armies marching
toward Jerusalem from an easterly direction.”31
In verse 30 of Matthew 24, the Lord teaches that at the second coming, “all
the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the
clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (NKJV). But Gentry insists that “this
is not a physical, visible coming, but a judgment coming upon Jerusalem. They
‘see’ it in the sense that we ‘see’ how a math problem works: with the ‘eye of
understanding’ rather than the organ of vision.”32 In this figurative sense, the
prophetic events of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans
captured and destroyed Jerusalem.
Pretribulational Response
Besides the obvious disagreement with preterists over hermeneutical
method, many pretribulationists believe that the preterists’ interpretation of “this
generation” (24:34) is askew. Preterists argue that this means that the generation
that was alive at the time that Christ presented this discourse must remain until
everything in the discourse was fulfilled.33 For the extreme preterist, this means that
the second coming occurred while that generation was alive. No insists, “Make no
mistake about it, A.D. 70 was the Lord’s promised and personal return!”34
None of the OT prophets’ predictions of the coming of the Messiah in
186 The Master’s Seminary Journal
35See Neil D. N elson, Jr., “‘ This Generation’ in Matt. 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective,”
JETS 38/3 (September 1996):369-85.
36Darrell L. B ock, Luke, The IVP New Testament Series, ed. Grant R. Osborne (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994) 343-44 (emphasis in the original).
power and glory (Zechariah 12–14), however, harmonizes with the events of A.D.
70. The OT prophets taught that when the armies surrounded Jerusalem, the
Messiah would come and fight for Israel. Israel, at the second coming, will be
victorious. But in A. D. 70, Israel was defeated and devastated, and the times of the
Gentiles was ushered in. Something is therefore awry with the extreme preterists’
interpretation of “this generation.”
What does it mean, therefore, that “this generation” would not pass away
until all these things take place (24:34)? Some pretribulationists have suggested that
“generation” in this passage means “race,” or “nation,” or “family.” Thus the Lord
would be saying that the nation of Israel would not pass away until all of the things
spoken of in the Olivet Discourse are fulfilled. Though this is a true statement, this
interpretation is based on an unusual meaning for “generation” ((,<,V, genea).
Moreover, the “until” is a problem, for it would imply that the nation of Israel would
pass away after the second coming, and Scripture certainly does not teach this.
Some good Bible teachers have argued that “this generation” is used in a
negative sense, a pejorative sense, meaning “wicked generation.”35 This interpreta-
tion is based on the way “generation” is often used throughout the Gospels—the
wicked generation that refused the Kingship to Christ. According to this view,
Christ, in effect, is setting the record straight with His disciples who believed in the
immediate arrival of the Kingdom inhabited only by the righteous. Instead, says
Christ, the wicked will be here until after the tribulation and second coming. In
addition, Jesus may be making the point that the wicked will receive the judgments
of the tribulation.
This view may be correct. It is certainly true that the wicked will be on
earth until after the tribulation and second coming. Its weakness is that it is
questionable that “this generation” is used enough in a pejorative sense to become
a technical term for wicked people.
The best interpretation of “this generation” is that the generation who sees
the events of the great tribulation will not pass away before the second coming
occurs. The disciples had asked for a sign of the second coming (24:3). Jesus
replies that the sign of the second coming will be the events of the great tribulation.
Therefore, the generation that sees the events of the tribulation will know that the
second coming is drawing near. Darrell Bock explains, “[O]nce the beginning of
the end arrives with the cosmic signs . . . , the Son of Man will return before that
generation passes away. . . . It is arguing that the end will occur within one
generation; the same group that sees the start of the end will see its end.”36
Thus, preterism’s claim that the generation alive at the time of Christ had
to be alive when all of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled is not legitimate. Preterism
thus fails in this passage of Scripture because of its figurative hermeneutics and
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 187
37For an analysis of a moderate preterist’s explanation of Matthew 24:3, see Mike Stallard, “A
Review of R. C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus: An Analysis of Moderate Preterism, Part
I,” The Conservative Journal 6/17 (March 2002):45-71.
wrong interpretation of “this generation.”37
Pretribulationism
Pretribulationism is the eschatological system within premillennialism that
teaches that Jesus Christ will rapture away His church before the future seven-year
tribulation begins. It is one of the most delightful and encouraging doctrines in all
of Scripture. Its blessing resides primarily in the fact that believers may see their
Lord and Savior in the next moment.
There is no doubt, of course, that there are some within pretribulationism
who tend to be reckless and superficial with Scripture. Who can forget sermons,
pamphlets, and booklets such as “88 Reasons Why the Rapture W ill Occur in
1988”? But thoughtful, biblical pretribulationism is still the most accurate
harmonization of prophetic events—and specifically of the Olivet Discourse.
“One Taken, One Left”
Some pretribulationists are less consistent with their system than are others.
It is not uncommon, for example, to hear pretribulationists preach prophetic sermons
about the rapture from Matthew 24:40-42: “Then two men will be in the field: one
will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will
be taken and the other left. W atch therefore, for you do not know what hour your
Lord is coming” (NKJV). It sounds like a possible rapture passage, but is it?
Though there is no single pretribulational interpretation of these verses, the
more consistent pretribulationists teach that the church and the rapture are not in the
Olivet Discourse at all. Though the one “taken” from the field and the mill sounds
like a reference to the rapture, it is not. The point of Matt 24:40-42 is not to teach
the imminency of the rapture. These verses teach the division of humanity at the
second coming of Christ to earth, with part of the world’s population being “taken”
into judgment. So, as described by Matthew, the person who is “taken” is an
unbeliever at the end of the tribulation who is “taken” to be judged.
Three reasons show why this understanding is correct. First, the word for
“taken” (B"D"8":$V<T, paralambanÇ) is not a technical word at all, and is used
of being taken into both good and bad judgment. Here, as in Matt 4:5, 8 where the
devil “takes” Jesus up to the pinnacle of the temple and the exceedingly high
mountain to be tempted, “taken” has a bad implication (cf. John 19:16).
Second, the immediately preceding verses (37-39) describe a taking into
judgment as illustrated by the judgment of the flood. The wicked of Noah’s day,
though they might have expected some type of flood judgment while watching Noah
build an ark, missed the signs, and “did not know until the flood came and took them
all away. . . .” And then the Lord adds, “so also will the coming of the Son of Man
188 The Master’s Seminary Journal
be” (24:39, NKVJ). Just as the Noahic flood came and took away the unsuspecting
and unprepared wicked, the judgments at the time of the second coming will come
and take away the unsuspecting and unprepared wicked.
Third, when Christ gives this illustration in Luke 17:34-37, the disciples
ask, “Where will they be taken?” And the Lord answers, “Wherever the body is,
there the eagles [i.e., vultures] will be gathered together” (17:37, NKJV). This is not
a pretty picture—surely an image of judgment. It is also noteworthy that preceding
this illustration in Luke 17 is another illustration of judgment—this time God’s
judgment on Sodom. In other words, the taking from the field and the mill is always
found in the midst of a judgment context.
So, these verses do not describe the rapture, but a taking into judgment at
the conclusion of the tribulation period. The ones left are allowed to enter the
millennial Kingdom.
The Fig Tree
Several Bible students, including some pretribulationists, believe they have
discovered hints about the time of the rapture in the parable of the fig tree:
Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and
puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these
things, know that it is near—at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will
by no means pass away till all these things take place (Matt 24:32-34, NKJV).
Whom does the fig tree represent? Some believe that it is Israel. Thus,
when Israel became a nation in 1948, the timetable for a generation began, and the
tribulation and second-coming events must take place before that generation died
out. Counting back seven years from the end of the tribulation and the second
coming means that the rapture would have occurred at least seven years before that
generation passed away. So if one could know for sure how long a generation is, he
could know about when the rapture would take place.
The fig tree, however, does not illustrate Israel becoming a nation in 1948.
The fig tree is simply an illustration from nature. The disciples ask, What will be the
sign of your coming and the end of the age? And the answer is, the events of the
great tribulation. This is illustrated by the cycle of a tree. When leaves appear on
a tree, that is a sign that summer is near. Similarly, when the events of the great
tribulation unfold, believers can know the second coming is near.
There are two evidences for this interpretation. First, when Jesus makes His
point from the fig tree illustration, He says, “When you see all these things, know
that it is near—at the doors!” (33). The Lord is not talking about a single event such
as Israel becoming a nation in 1948. He speaks of all of the events of the tribulation
being signs of the second coming.
Second, in the parallel passage in Luke, Luke records Jesus adding the
phrase, “and all the trees” (Luke 21:19). If the fig tree blossoming were a reference
to the founding of Israel, what would the blossoming of the other trees illustrate?
The parable understood in this way does not make sense.
Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse 189
38MacArthur, Second Coming 134.
Again, the best understanding of the illustration is that the Lord is simply
giving an illustration from nature. MacArthur writes, “The point of the parable is
utterly uncomplicated; even a child can tell by looking at a fig tree that summer is
near. Likewise, the generation that sees all these signs come to pass will know with
certainty that Christ’s return is near.”38
CONCLUSION
The Olivet Discourse is a majestic passage of Scripture in which the Lord
explains the future of Israel from the perspective of believing Israel. Unfortunately,
most rapture systems go astray in their interpretation of the Lord’s message.
Posttribulationism attempts to find the church and the rapture in this passage of
Scripture by insisting that the disciples must represent the church. But the correct
interpretation of this passage is not settled by whom the disciples represent. It is
settled by the disciples’ questions. Do they ask about the future of the church or the
future of Israel? Clearly they ask about the future of Israel in relationship to her
temple, Messiah, and Kingdom. Thus, the posttribulational rapture is not to be
found in the Olivet Discourse.
The pre-wrath rapture view insists that Jesus’ words about the shortening
of the tribulation mean that the second half of the tribulation will be shortened, and
the rapture will occur before God’s wrath is poured out in the Day of the Lord about
three-fourths of the way through the seven-year period. But it is illogical to think
of the tribulation being shortened, only to be replaced by something worse.
Moreover, “shortened” means that the tribulation is limited to a specific time, shorter
than what the powers of evil desire or what the wicked world deserves. It will not
go on indefinitely.
Preterists believe that the prophecies in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled
in A.D. 70—the more extreme preterists even insisting that the second coming and
other end-time events occurred then. But this is based on figurative interpretation
and an incorrect understanding of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34.
Some pretribulationists (and others) have found the rapture in Matt 24:40-
42, and a hint about the time of the rapture by interpreting the fig tree (24:32-34) as
a prophecy of the establishment of the nation of Israel in 1948. However, the one
taken and the one left in the illustrations in 24:40-42 point to the separation of
humanity into two classes at the end of the tribulation. Unbelievers will be “taken”
into judgment and believers will be left to enter the millennial Kingdom. It is not
a passage about the rapture. And the fig tree is not about Israel, but illustrates how
the events of the great tribulation will be signs of the soon arrival of the Lord Jesus
Christ.
John MacArthur says, “Jesus’ answers by no means erased all the mystery
from those [disciples’] questions. The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse is no
190 The Master’s Seminary Journal
39Ibid., 77.
easy undertaking.”39 This is certainly true. No doubt most Bible-believing
Christians, whatever their eschatological systems, are doing their best to understand
the Lord’s instruction here. It is our contention, however, that a consistent contextual
and literal interpretation of the Olivet Discourse as represented by pretribulationism
most accurately mines the riches of this marvelous passage of Scripture.
1The First Epistle of Clement 23.
191
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 191-214
IMMINENCE IN THE NT, ESPECIALLY PAUL’S
THESSALONIAN EPISTLES
Robert L. Thomas
Professor of New Testament
Fathers in the ancient church dealt frequently with the doctrine of
imminence, sometimes viewing God’s future wrath against rebels as imminent and
sometimes viewing the future coming of Christ as imminent. The NT furnishes good
reason for the fathers to view both aspects of the future as imminent, beginning with
the teachings of Christ who laid the foundation for the teaching of imminency though
His use of parabolic expressions of a master standing at the door and knocking and
of an unexpected coming of a thief and His use of the futuristic tense of §DP@:"4
(erchomai). In company with other NT writers, Paul emphasized the imminence of
both future wrath and the return of Christ in His two epistles to the Thessalonians.
He did this in several parts of the epistles—in discussing the day of the Lord in 1
Thessalonians 5, in describing the “catching away” in 1 Thessalonians 4, in 1 Thess
1:9-10 and 2:16, and in 2 Thess 1:9-10 and 2:1-3. A study of the two epistles and
a survey the rest of the NT indicates that the church fathers were right: the rapture
of the church and the beginning of the day of the Lord could come at any moment.
* * * * *
The testimony of the ancient fathers is mixed, sometimes speaking of the
imminence of Christ’s return and other times of the imminence of the future time of
wrath. Clement speaks of the former as imminent:
Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears
witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;” and, “The Lord shall
suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.”1
Ignatius speaks of the latter as imminent:
192 The Master’s Seminary Journal
2Ignatius Ephesians 11, shorter version.
3Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.29.1.
4Robert L. Thomas, “The ‘Comings’ of Christ in Revelation 2–3,” The Master’s Seminary Journal
7/2 (Fall 1996):153-81.
The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the
long-suffering of God, that it tend not to our condemnation. For let us either stand in awe
of the wrath to come, or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed—one of
two things.2
Irenaeus speaks of both as imminent:
And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is
said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall
be.”3
Why this apparent ambivalence among early Christian leaders who were following
the teachings of the same NT as present-day Bible students? The following
discussion proposes that there is good reason for their teachings that both the return
of Christ for His church and the return of Christ to inflict wrath and tribulation on
the world are imminent.
An earlier article on the book of Revelation substantiates this dual
imminence.4 The present essay will focus attention on Paul’s two epistles to the
Thessalonian church, but it first must probe the question of who originated the NT
teaching on imminence. Imminence of these two future happenings interweaves
itself into NT teaching from beginning to end, raising the strong probability that the
origin of the teaching w as none other than Jesus Himself. Thus the first area to
explore briefly will be some of Jesus’ teachings on the subject. Then the study can
concentrate its attention on Paul’s Thessalonian epistles.
Jesus’ Emphasis on Imminence
The Olivet Discourse and Earlier
In Luke 12:35-48, as part of His Later Judean Ministry just over three
months before delivering His Olivet Discourse, Jesus instructed His disciples about
the need of being ready for His return:
Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning. And be like men awaiting their master
when he departs from the wedding feast, that when he comes and knocks, they may
immediately open for him. . . . And know this, that if the master of the house had known
at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken
into. And you too, be prepared, because at the hour when you do not expect, the Son of
Man is coming. . . . Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom the lord will appoint
over his service, for a measuring of rations in season. Blessed is that slave whom, when
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 193
5Translations in this essay are those of the author.
6Marshall notes the recurrence of the picture of the master standing outside the door and knocking
in Rev 3:20, and the recurrence of the metaphor of the thief in 1 Thess 5:2, 4; 2 Pet 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15
(I. Howard M arsh all, The Gospel of Luke: A Com mentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978] 536, 538; with regard to the thief metaphor, cf. also Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Volume 2:
9:51–24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed., Moisés Silva. [Grand Rapids:
Baker, 19 96] 1171, and Robert H. Stein, Luke, vol. 24 of NAC [Nashville: Broadman, 1992] 360).
7Davies and Allison correctly see “all these things” in vv. 33 and 34 as embracing “all the signs and
events leading up to the parousia” (W . D. D avies and Da le C . Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, ICC [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997] 366,
cf. also 367). Hagner agrees tha t the expression covers “everything spok en of in vv. 4-2 8 ” (D onald A.
Hagner, Matthew 14–28, vol. 33B of Word Biblical Commentary, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W.
Barker [Dallas: Word, 1995] 715). Cf. also D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in EBC, ed. Frank E. G aebelein
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 8:507.
8Davies and Allison take 24:36 as the heading for the section on “eschatological vigilance”
(24:36–25:30) rather than linking it w ith material that has gone before in the Disco urse, and see the entire
section as teaching that “one must be ever prepared for what may come at any time” (Gospel according
to Saint Matthew 374, cf. also 374 n. 1). The *X (de) that begins v. 36 must be transitional, because the
he comes, his master will find doing thus. I say truly to you that he will appoint him over
all his possessions. But if that slave says in his heart, “My Lord delays to come, and
begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the Lord
of that slave will come in a day when he does not expect and in an hour which he does
not know and cut him in pieces and assign him a place with unbelievers. . . .5
These two parables contain two pictorial expressions that became a vital part of
Christian thinking throughout the first-century church.6 The first is that of the master
standing at the door and knocking (Luke 12:36), and the second is that of the
unexpected coming of a thief (Luke 12:39). The design of both figures is to teach
the imminence of Christ’s return. In both parables of Luke 12:35-48, the unexpected
coming brings blessing to the followers who are prepared, but in the latter parable
that coming brings punishment to those who are unprepared.
Jesus also laid groundwork for His Olivet Discourse less than three months
before that sermon when He used the coming of the flood in Noah’s day and the
destruction of Sodom in Lot’s day as examples of His imminent return (Luke 17:22-
37). This lesson came during the period of His ministry in and around Perea.
Then on Tuesday of His last week on earth, Jesus taught similar lessons
regarding His return. The signs given in Matt 24:4-28 are within Daniel’s seventieth
week and indicate the nearness of Jesus’ return to earth as described in Matt 24:29-
31.7 These signals of nearness differ from the parables of Luke 12:35-48, which
contained no signs of nearness. If signs must occur before His coming, His coming
is not imminent. Neither are there signs given in Luke 17:26-37, where Jesus with
several similar comparisons predicts the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God.
But in Matt 24:36 Jesus turns the page to speak of the absence of any sign
that might signal the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week.8 His words were, “But
194 The Master’s Seminary Journal
thirty-sixth verse changes from the discussion of signs preceding the coming to emphasize that no signs
will precede the parousia. A,DÂ *X (Peri de, 24:36) is a frequent NT device for introducing a change
from one phase of a subject to another phase of the same subject or from one subject to another subject
(cf. Matt 22:31; Mark 12:26; 13:32; Acts 21:25; 1 Cor 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12; 1 Thess 4:9, 13; 5:1).
The verse introduces an aspect of the coming different from the one pointed to in Matt 24:29-31. The
verb depicting the coming in 24:30 is erchomenon, but the noun designating the “com ing” in 24:37 is
parousia, a term that easily covers a wider span.
9Craig L. B lom berg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery (Nashville:
Broadman, 1992) 22:365.
10Hagner correctly understands “that day and hour” to mean that setting a time for the parousia is
“beyond human determination altogether, and no t just partially, e.g., so that, say, the month or year could
be known . . .” (Matthew 14–28 716).
11Davies and Allison illustrate the unity of the section begun at v. 36 by citing the repetition of key
phrases (e.g., “you do not know” [24:42], “you do not expect” [24:44], “he does not know” [24:50], “you
know neither the day nor th e hour” [25:13]) a nd key w ord s (e.g ., “know,” “day[s],” “hour,” “co me[s],”
“Son of m an,” “w atch ”) that are repeated throughout (D avies and Allison, Gospel according to Saint
Matthew 377).
12As A. B. B ruce puts it, “[i]t loo ks like Jesus correcting H imself . . .” in v. 36 (“The Gospels
According to Matthew, Mark and Luke,” EGT, W. Robertson N icoll [G rand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.]
1:296).
13Davies and Allison understand “th at day” in 24:3 6 to refer to the OT day of the Lord, spoken of
in the NT as the parous ia, and, because of a difference in perspective, explain the timing uncertainty of
v. 36 not as contradicting the certain ty of v. 34 but as interpretin g it (D avies a nd Allison, Gospel
According to Saint Matthew, 378; cf. also Blomberg, Matthew 22:365, who cites Matt 10:15; 11:22, 24;
12:36 in support of this being a reference to the day of the Lord). They understand “this generation” of
v. 34 to refer to Jesus’ contemporaries rather than seeing it as a qualitative expression as this writer takes
it to be (cf. Robert L. Thomas, “The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in Looking
into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology, ed. David W . Baker [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001]
201-4). For further delineation of the qualitative view of “this generation,” see Robert H. Gundry,
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 2nd ed. (Grand
concerning that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the
Son, but the Father only.” His use of “day and hour” encompass a broader span than
just a 24-hour day or a 60-minute hour.9 As is true throughout Matthew (cf. Matt
7:22; 10:19; 24:42, 44, 50; 25:13; 26:45), the two time-designations cover a broad
period of time. Jesus is saying that no one has the faintest idea about when—in the
broadest sense of the term “when”—the Son of Man will return. Here He indicates
the complete unexpectedness of what will overtake the world at the time of His
second advent.10 He changes the subject from the signs that indicate the nearness of
His coming to establish the kingdom in 24:32-35 to speak of events which will have
no signals to indicate that the advent is “at the door.”11 In other words, 24:36 speaks
of a different arrival from the arrival signaled by “all these things,” twice referred
to in connection with the parable of the fig tree in 24:32-34.12 After 24:36 Jesus
looks at the events of Daniel’s seventieth week as a whole and how the beginning
of that week will catch everyone by surprise, with no indication that it is “at the
door.”13
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 195
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 491.
Jesus illustrated the complete unexpectedness of the series of events of that
week by noting the parallel of His coming to inflict wrath on the world with the way
God caught the world by surprise with the flood in Noah’s day (24:37-39). The
victims did not know about it until the flood happened. That will be the case when
the Son of Man returns. The world will not know until the period is under way.
They will have no warnings such as those alluded to in the parable of the fig tree.
He continued His emphasis on the imminence of that return by describing
two workers in the field and two female grinders at the mill (24:40-41). In each
case, one will be taken in judgment as were those outside of Noah’s family, and the
other will be left as were the members of Noah’s family. The picture is that of
complete surprise. No one in Noah’s day had the faintest idea that a series of
cataclysms was about to begin. On that basis, Jesus commanded the disciples to
watch, because neither they nor anyone else knew at what period of history their
Lord would come to inflict judgment on disobedient Israel (24:42).
At that point Jesus gave the men five parables to enforce His teaching of
imminence. The first is in the Gospel of Mark and the last four in the Gospel of
Matthew. The Markan parable tells of a man who left home for a journey and gave
his slaves tasks to accomplish while he was gone. He gave special instructions to
the doorkeeper—note the implication that the master would return to the door—to
remain on the alert, because they had no idea when the master of the house would
return (Mark 13:33-37). This parable contains nothing to indicate the master would
return within a given time-span as the parable of the fig tree would require, so the
slaves were to remain on the alert into the indefinite future.
Matthew’s first parable, the second in this series by the Lord, tells of the
master of a house who did not know during what watch of the night the thief would
come (Matt 24:43-44). Though not stated explicitly, it is implicit that the master did
not know on what given night the thief would come or whether he would come at all.
As a result, the thief broke into his house because he was not watching. In light of
that comparison, the Lord tells His disciples to be prepared because the Son of Man
will come at an hour they do not expect. This marks the Lord’s second use of the
figure of the unexpected coming of a thief. The parable places no limit on the time
frame during which the thief had to come, and so again the pattern of the parable of
the fig tree is not applicable.
Matthew’s second parable in this series describes the faithful and wise slave
and the wicked slave (24:45-51). Their master will richly reward the slave whom
he finds fulfilling his responsibilities when he returns, but will punish severely that
wicked slave who uses the delay in his master’s return to abuse the authority given
to him. “The master of that slave will come on a day when he [the slave] does not
expect and at an hour that he does not know” (24:50). That slave can anticipate an
eternity of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The parable fixes no maximum amount
of time for the master’s absence as would be implied if this were speaking of the
196 The Master’s Seminary Journal
same coming as the parable of the fig tree.
The fourth parable in the series, the third in Matthew’s Gospel, speaks of
ten virgins, five of whom were foolish and five wise (25:1-13). When the
bridegroom came unexpectedly in the middle of the night, the foolish virgins had no
oil for their lamps. By the time they purchased oil, it was too late, and they found
themselves locked out of the wedding feast where the wise virgins had been
admitted. Neither group knew a fixed period within which the groom would return,
but one group was ready, the other was not. The lesson: “Watch therefore, because
you do not know the day or the hour” (25:13).
The fifth and last parable in the series comes in Matt 25:14-30, the parable
of the talents. Prior to leaving on a journey, the master gave one slave five talents,
another two talents, and a third slave one talent. The one with five talents gained
five more, and the one with two gained two more. Upon the master’s return, they
received his commendation with a promise of being given more responsibility. The
slave with one talent buried his talent and received the master’s rebuke for not
investing it to gain more. That slave’s destiny was outer darkness. The lesson of
this parable is that of serving the Lord responsibly while awaiting His return.
Readiness for His return also entails responsible action while He is away, not for a
limited time, but for a time of unstipulated length.
In the two illustrations of Noah’s day and the sowers and grinders and in
the first four parables, the incontrovertible lesson Jesus teaches is that of the
imminence of His return to judge, and therefore, the need for watchfulness and
readiness for that return whenever it should occur. It is no wonder that the early
church and the church throughout the ages has considered events surrounding the
Lord’s return as imminent. He will return to begin the series of events that will mark
Daniel’s seventieth week, with no prior signals to herald His return. Since nothing
remains to occur before His parousia, that parousia is imminent.
Chart 1 on page 197 summarizes the above discussion.
The Upper Room Discourse
On the Mount of Olives, the dominant theme on Tuesday of Passion Week
was Jesus’ return to judge the nation Israel, as He spoke to the disciples. On
Thursday of that week His Discourse in the Upper Room spoke to them in an
entirely different role. On Tuesday they represented national Israel. On Thursday,
however, He addressed them as representatives of a new body to be formed about
fifty days later, that body being the church. Here He injected His imminent return
in a more subtle fashion, but He nevertheless made the point. In John 14:3 He said,
“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to
myself, that where I am, you may be also.” Imminence is part of the verb form “I
will come,” the Greek word §DP@:"4 (erchomai). Used in 14:3 in parallel with the
future indicative B"D"8Z:R@:"4 (paralmpsomai), which means “I will receive,”
the present tense erchomai is clearly a futuristic use of the present tense, a use of
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 197
Chart 1—Imminence Versus Nonimminence
Nonimminent
Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds
of the sky
(Mt 24:29-31; Mk 13:24-27; Lk 21:25-
27) [a single judgment]
Imminent
Parousia of the Son of Man to impose
wrath
(Mt 24:37, 44)
[beginning of a series of judgments]
Signs of Nearness: “These things”
and “all these things”
(Mt 24:33-34; Mk 13:29-30; Lk 21:31-
32)
Signs of Nearness:
“No one knows about that day and
hour”
(Mt 24:36, 42; 25:13; Mk 13:32)
“Beginning of Sorrows” Signs
(Mt 24:4-14; Mk 13:5-13; Lk 21:8-19)
Many coming in Christ’s name
(Mt 24:5; Mk 13:6; Lk 21:8)
Wars and rumors of wars
(Mt 24:6; Mk 13:7; Lk 21:9)
Nation against nation
(Mt 24:7a; Mk 13:8a; Lk 21:10)
Famines and earthquakes
(Mt 24:7b; Mk 13:8b; Lk 21:11a)
Persecution and martyrdom
(Mt 24:9; Mk 13:9; Lk 21:12)
Apostasy and dissension
(Mt 24:10; Mk 13:12; Lk 21:16)
False prophets
(Mt 24:11)
Increase of lawlessness
(24:12)
“Great Tribulation” Signs (Mt 24:15-
28; Mk 13:14-23)
Abomination of desolation
(Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14)
Flight to the mountains
(Mt 24:16-18; Mk 13:14b-16)
Great tribulation
(Mt 24:21; Mk 13:19)
False christs and false prophets
(Mt 24:24; Mk 13:22)
[No signs]
198 The Master’s Seminary Journal
14Wayne A. Brindle, “Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture,” BSac 158 (April-June
2001):139-142.
15Brow n’s words regarding John 14:2-3 are, “These verses are best understood as a reference to a
parousia in which Jesus would return soon after his death to lead his disciples triumphantly to heaven”
(Raymond E. Brow n, The Gospel according to John [xiii–xxi), vol. 29A o f A B [Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday, 1970] 62 6). Yet Brown concludes that the verses had to be reinterpreted when th e early
church realized that the parousia had not occurred soon after the death of Jesus and when the disciples
began to die.
16Renald E. Show ers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View: An Examination and Critique (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 2001) 201.
17Ibid.
that tense that strongly implies imminence.14 The sense is, “I am on my way and
may arrive at any moment.”
This is a coming for deliverance of the faithful, however, not a coming for
judgment. He will retrieve the faithful and take them back to the Father’s house with
Himself (John 14:2-3).15 There they will remain with Him until He returns to the
earth to establish His earthly kingdom for a thousand years.
The conclusion must be therefore that Jesus was the one who initiated the
teaching of the imminence of His return both to judge the world and to deliver the
faithful. As we proceed, we will see how that teaching caught on with the first-
century NT church. Subsequent books of the NT indicate that two figures used by
Him to portray that imminence caught the attention and remained in the memories
of early Christians. One figure was the surprise arrival of a thief and the other was
the picture of a master standing at the door ready to enter at any moment.
Summary of Jesus’ Teaching on Imminence
Jesus’ emphasis on imminence carries at least four connotations for living
individuals of each generation:
CPeople cannot reckon that a certain amount of time will pass before a predicted
event will occur, and therefore must be prepared at all times for that
occurrence.16
CNo other prophecy in the Bible remains to be fulfilled before the imminent event
occurs. Therefore, if two prophesied events are imminent, neither can precede
the other.
CSetting a date when an imminent event will occur is impossible. Date-setting
directly contradicts the concept of imminency because it posits a certain amount
of time before the event, thereby nullifying its imminence.17
CImminence means that the date of a predicted event may not be limited to a
certain period of time, such as approximately forty years between Christ’s
crucifixion and the destruction of Jerusalem or approximately seven years of
Daniel’s seventieth week. The time span within which an imminent event will
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 199
18See Thomas, “‘Comings’ of C hrist” 153-81, for a fuller discussion of dual imminence in that
portion of John’s writings.
occur is completely undefined and unlimited.
Chart 2 on page 200 summarizes Jesus’ emphasis on His imminent coming
both to judge the unrepentant and to deliver the faithful.
Emphasis on Imminence by NT Writers Other Than Paul
Other NT writers show the effect of Jesus’ teachings on imminence. In the
late forties of the first century A.D., James in his epistle wrote to Jewish believers
in the Diaspora (i.e., the dispersion) about dual imminence. The imminence of
coming judgment on oppressors of the poor (James 5:1-6) and the imminence of
Christ’s coming as an incentive for longsuffering of the faithful (James 5:7-11). He
has Christ standing at the door, ready to enter and rectify past injustices (5:9). That
was one of the figures introduced by Jesus in Luke 12:36 and in His Olivet
Discourse (Mark 13:34).
In the late sixties Peter wrote to believers in what is now north-central Asia
Minor about the imminent arrival of the day of the Lord (2 Pet 3:10). Using a later
part of that day to represent the day as a whole, he spoke of the day’s coming as a
thief, both to encourage mockers to repent and to help the faithful to persevere. That
was the second figure used by Jesus in Luke 12:39 and on the Mount of Olives (Matt
24:43).
In the last decade of the first century, John wrote to seven churches in first-
century Asia to persuade the unrepentant to repent and the faithful to hold fast
(Revelation 2–3).18 One of the figures he used to exhort the churches to watchful-
ness in light of Christ’s coming was that of a thief (Rev. 3:3; 16:15; cf. Matt 24:43;
Luke 12:39). Another was the figure of His standing at the door and knocking (Rev
3:20; cf. Mark 13:34; Luke 12:36). See Chart 3 on page 201 for a chronological
summary of these passages on imminence.
200 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Chart 2—An Imminent Coming with Two Purposes
Direct
Statement:
No one
knows
when
Mt 24:36 Mt 24:44 Mt 25:13
Coming Parable:
Master at
the Door
Lk 12:36 Mk 13:34
Parable:
House-
breaking
Thief
Lk 12:39 Mt 24:43
for Other Par-
ables
Household
Slave: Lk
12:42-48
Faithful vs.
Wicked
Slave: Mt
24:45-51
Ten Vir-
gins: Mt
25:1-13
Talents:
Mt 25:14-
30
Days of
Noah
Lk 17:26-
27
Mt 24:38-
39
Days of
Lot
Lk 17:28-
29
Judgment
Example:
Two Men
in One Bed
Lk 17:34
Example:
Two
Women
Grinding
Lk 17:35 Mt 24:41
Example:
Two Men
in the Field
Mt 24:40
Coming for
Deliverance
Direct Statement: Futuristic Present Tense of erchomai, “I will
come,” Jn 14:2-3
Chart 3—NT Teachers of Imminence
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 201
Coming Wrath Coming Deliverance
Jesus, A.D. 29-30
As a Thief, The Master
at the Door: Mt 24; Mk
13; Lk 12
Jn 14:2-3
James, late A.D. 40s Jas 5:1-6 The Judge at the Door:
Jas 5:7-11
Paul, A.D. 51
As a Thief: 1 Thess 5:1-
11; also 2 Thess 1:7-9
1 Thess 1:10;
4:13-18;
2 Thess 1:10; 2:1-3
Peter, A.D. 67 As a Thief: 2 Pet 3:10 2 Pet 3:3-9, 11-15
John, A.D. 95
As a Thief: Rev 3:3;
16:15; also Rev 2:5, 16
The Judge at the Door:
Rev. 3:20; also Rev
2:25; 3:11
The task of this present essay is to examine the writings of a fourth NT
writer, Paul, and to see what he taught about the imminence of Christ’s return and
the day of the Lord, especially in his Thessalonian epistles.
Paul’s Emphasis on Imminence in 1 Thessalonians
The Day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5
Paul very clearly teaches the imminence of the wrathful phase of the day
of the Lord in 1 Thess 5:2-3: “For you yourselves (i.e., the Thessalonian readers)
know with exactness that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night. When
they say, ‘Peace and safety,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as birth
pains to a woman with child, and they shall in no way escape.” The apostle offers
further evidence of the widespread impact of Jesus’ use of the thief figure to express
imminence. He reflects the negative impact of the day of the Lord in speaking of the
destruction that will beset earth’s inhabitants when it arrives. By comparing the
period to the birth pains of a pregnant woman, he shows his awareness that the OT
and Jesus Himself used that comparison to depict the period just before Jesus’
personal reappearance on earth (Isa 13:8; 26:17-19; 66:7ff.; Jer 30:7-8; Micah 4:9-
10; Matt 24:8).
Later in the same paragraph, in discussing the exemption of believers from
the horrors of this period, Paul gives indication that the day is a period of wrath:
“Because God has not appointed us to wrath, but to the possession of salvation
202 The Master’s Seminary Journal
19Brindle, “Imminence of the Rapture” 144-46.
20D. Edmond Hiebert, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1992) 227.
21Ibid.
22Abraham J. M alherb e, The Letters to the Thessalonians, vol 32B of A B, eds. William Foxw ell
Albright, and David No el Freedm an (New Yo rk: D oubleday, 2000) 2 88; Charles A. W anamaker, The
Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990) 177; Robert L. Thomas, “1 Thessalonians,” EBC, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978) 11:280.
23Malherbe, Letters to the Thessalonains 288-89.
through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:9).19 This first phase of the day of the
Lord will witness the outpouring of God’s wrath against a rebellious world.
Believers will be delivered from that period.
Regarding 1 Thess 5:2 Hiebert writes, “As a prophetic period, the Day of
the Lord is inaugurated with the rapture of the church as described in 4:13-18, covers
the time of the Great Tribulation, and involves His return to earth and the establish-
ment of His messianic reign. In this passage Paul is dealing only with the judgment
aspect of that day.”20 As for the figure of the coming of a thief, Hiebert continues,
“The comparison lies in the suddenness and unexpectedness of both events. The
thief comes suddenly and at a time that cannot be predetermined; so the Day of the
Lord will come suddenly when people are not expecting it.”21 Such is the
imminence which Jesus described when He taught His disciples that no one knows
the day or the hour when God will begin to vent His wrath against the world. The
apostle reminds his readers of what they know with exactness: that specific
information regarding the date for the beginning of the day of the Lord is unavailable
to human beings. No prior signal will occur to alert people to the proximity of the
day just as no warning comes before a house-breaking thief enters. Unexpectedness
of the event forces people to remain in a constant state of readiness.
The Catching Away in 1 Thessalonians 4
The imminence of the day of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5 is obvious, but
what is the nature of expectation related to the coming of the Lord to catch away His
saints in 1 Thessalonians 4. The B,DÂ *X (peri de, “now concerning”) that begins
chapter 5 turns to a new aspect of the same subject discussed at the end of chapter
4.22 The connective phrase marks a shift in thought, but a shift that is not without
a connection to the foregoing. First Thessalonians 5:1 speaks of “the times and the
seasons.” What other times and seasons could these be but the ones pertaining to the
catching away of those in Christ about which Paul has just written (cf. Acts 1:7).23
Obviously, both the previous and the following contexts relate to the parousia
(“coming”) of Christ.
The Thessalonian readers had an accurate awareness of the unexpectedness
of the arrival of the day of the Lord (5:1-2), having received prior instruction from
the apostle based on the teachings of Jesus, but they were ignorant of and therefore
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 203
24Hiebert, 1 & 2 Thessalonians 210.
25J. B. L ightfoot, Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (reprint of 1895 ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1957) 67.
26Thomas, “1 Thessalonians” 278.
perplexed about what would happen to the dead in Christ at the time of Christ’s
return. Before beginning his review of the imminence of the day of the Lord in 5:1-
11, Paul has already in 4:13-18 clarified for them that the dead in Christ will have
an equal and even a prior part in the events surrounding Christ’s return. That the
catching away of those in Christ is temporally connected with the day of the Lord
is the natural understanding of the sequence from 1 Thessalonians 4 to 1 Thessalon-
ians 5, a connection that receives verification in 2 Thess 1:9-10, as will be pointed
out below in this essay.
Is that coming for those in Christ imminent also? The answer to that
question is yes and is based on several indicators. One is the writer’s use of the first
person plural in 4:15, 17: “we who live and who remain until the coming of the
Lord” are the ones who will be caught away. Paul uses the first person plural,
because he was personally looking for the Lord’s return during his lifetime. This
was not a “pious pretense perpetrated for the good of the church. He sincerely lived
and labored in anticipation of the day, but he did not know when it would come.”24
He was setting an example of expectancy for the church of all ages.25
Proper Christian anticipation includes the imminent return of Christ. His coming will be
sudden and unexpected, an any-moment possibility. This means that no divinely revealed
prophesies remain to be fulfilled before that event. Without setting a deadline, Paul
hoped that it would transpire in his own life time. Entertaining the possibility of his own
death (2 Tim. 4:6-8) and not desiring to contravene Christ’s teaching about delay (Matt.
24:48; 25:5; Luke 19:11-27), Paul, along with all primitive Christianity, reckoned on the
prospect of remaining alive till Christ returned (Rom. 13:11; 1 Cor. 7:26, 29; 10:11;
15:51-52; 16:22; Phil. 4:5). A personal hope of this type characterized him throughout
his days (2 Cor. 5:1-4; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:8; Tit. 2:11-13).26
Had Paul thought that the beginning of the day of the Lord would precede
the return of Christ for His church, he could not have expected Christ’ return at any
moment. He would have known that the imminent beginning of the day of the Lord
had not yet occurred, and hence that the catching up of those in Christ was not an
any-moment possibility. On the contrary, he knew that both happenings could occur
at any moment.
Another indicator of the imminence of Christ’s coming for those in Christ
lies in the nature of Paul’s description in 1 Thess 4:16-17. The dead in Christ will
be the main participants in the first act of the Lord’s return as they are resurrected
before anything else happens. Then living Christians will suddenly be snatched
away, presumably taking on their resurrection bodies without experiencing death.
Since other evidence points to “the word of the Lord” (1 Thess 4:15) as a special
204 The Master’s Seminary Journal
27Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, ed. Gordon D. Fee(Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987) 800.
28Robert H. G undry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 29
[emphasis in the original].
29Ibid.
revelation through which Paul learned these new details regarding the event, and
since 1 Cor 15:51-53 calls similar information a “mystery,” also language for a
special revelation, Paul spoke of the same event about four years later in the
Corinthian passage: “Behold, I speak a mystery to you: all of us will not sleep, but
we all will be changed, in a moment, in the blinking of an eye, at the last trumpet;
for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be
changed. For this perishable must put on imperishability and this mortal must put on
immortality.” That additional detail reveals that the whole process will be a
momentary happening, not an extended process. Before anyone knows what is
happening, it will be over. That again speaks of imminence because Paul again uses
the first person plural in Corinthians. He anticipated the possibility that the parousia
would come during his lifetime.27 Something that comes and goes that quickly is
surely beyond human ability to pinpoint.
How have various systems with no room for imminence handled this
biblical teaching? One approach to explaining this teaching is that of Gundry who
defines imminence as follows: “By common consent imminence means that so far
as we know no predicted event will necessarily precede the coming of Christ.”28 His
definition would be correct if he had omitted “so far as we know” and “necessarily”
from that sentence. The statement would then correctly read, “By common consent
imminence means that no predicted event will precede the coming of Christ.”
Gundry’s additions render his definition of imminence totally inaccurate. He
continues, “The concept [of imminence] incorporates three essential elements:
suddenness, unexpectedness or incalculability, and a possibility of occurrence at any
moment. . . . Imminence would only raise the possibility of pretribulationism on a
sliding scale with mid- and posttribulationism.”29 “Suddenness,” “unexpectedness,”
and “incalculability” are accurate as is “a possibility of occurrence at any moment,”
but raising “the possibility of pretribulationism on a sliding scale with mid- and
posttribulatinism” is unfortunately distorted. If Christ’s coming is only a possibility
before the tribulation, the tribulation could begin before the rapture and the biblical
teaching of an imminent coming has disappeared. If only a possibility, a person who
does not prepare for Christ’s return has an incentive to be prepared radically reduced
or even eliminated. He still has a calculated chance of coming through unscathed
after God’s wrath begins. Jesus and the other NT writers offered no such prospect
for the unrepentant, however.
Another attempt at explaining away imminence is that of Carson who writes
the following regarding imminence, “. . . ‘[T]he imminent return of Christ’ then
means Christ may return at any time. But the evangelical writers who use the word
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 205
30D. A. Carson, “Matthew” 490.
31Ibid. Carson’s reference to “one second or less” vividly recalls 1 Cor 15:52 where Paul prophesies
that Christ’s com ing will be “in a moment [or flash], in the twinkling of an eye.”
32Millard J. Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998) 181.
33Ben Witherington III, “Transcending Imminence: The Go rdian Knot of P auline Eschatology,”
Eschatology in the Bible & Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997) 174.
divide on whether ‘imminent’ in the sense of ‘at any time’ should be pressed to mean
‘at any second’ or something looser such as ‘at any period’ or ‘in any generation.’”30
Carson’s suggestion of a “looser” meaning of imminence removes the primary force
of the word. Trying to understand what he and other representatives of this “not
imminent but imminent” group mean by imminence or expectation is extremely
difficult. It is almost like trying to adjudicate a “doublespeak” contest. Carson says,
“Yet the terms ‘imminent’ and imminency’ retain theological usefulness if they
focus attention on the eager expectancy of the Lord’s return characteristic of many
NT passages, a return that could take place soon, i.e., within a fairly brief period of
time, without specifying that the period must be one second or less.”31 Like Gundry,
Carson wavers on the meaning of imminent. If imminence means only that Jesus
may return at any period or in any generation, it does not match up with the NT
teaching on the subject. Such a looser connotation of the word “imminent” loses
contact with what Christ taught and what the rest of the NT writers insisted was the
proper Christian outlook.
Erickson approaches imminence in another evasive way: “It is one thing to
say we do not know when an event will occur; it is another thing to say that we
know of no times when it will not occur. If on a time scale we have points 1 to
1,000, we may know that Christ will not come at points 46 and 79, but not know at
just what point He will come. The instructions about watchfulness do not mean that
Christ may come at any time.”32 Erickson’s reasoning is difficult to follow. Christ
never designated points at which He would not return. He could have come at points
46 and 79, contrary to Erickson’s assertion. He could come at any point between 1
and 1,000. The fact that He has not yet come does not erase the ongoing possibility
that He can come at any moment.
Witherington’s wording for questioning imminence is different: “In short,
one cannot conclude that 1 Thessalonians 4:15 clearly means that Paul thought the
Lord would definitely return during his lifetime. Possible imminence had to be
conjured with, but certain imminence is not affirmed here.”33 From a practical
standpoint, possible imminence is tantamount to certain imminence. How
Witherington can distinguish between the two defies explanation. Certain
imminence means Christ could come at any moment; possible imminence, unless
one offers an alternative of impossible imminence to go with it, also means that
Christ could return at any moment. The “impossible-imminence” alternative directly
contradicts the possible-imminence teaching and is therefore impossible.
Beker represents an unbiased approach to the text when he clarifies Paul’s
206 The Master’s Seminary Journal
34J. Chris tiaan Beker, Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 49.
35Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, HNTC (New
York: Harper and Row, 1973) 83; and Brindle, “Imminence of the Rapture” 142-44.
attitude more accurately than those who cannot fit imminence into their eschatologi-
cal systems:
Thus delay of the parousia is not a theological concern for Paul. It is not an embarrass-
ment for him; it does not compel him to shift the center of his attention from apocalyptic
imminence to a form of “realized eschatology,” that is to a conviction of the full presence
of the kingdom of God in our present history. It is of the essence of his faith in Christ
that adjustments in his expectations can occur without a surrender of these expectations
(1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:15-51; 2 Cor 5:1-10; Phil. 2:21-24). Indeed, the hope in
God’s imminent rule through Christ remains the constant in his letters from beginning
to end. . . .34
All the “nonimminence” advocates, who must place Christ’s coming for
those in Christ at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week, must speak of the unexpected-
ness of His advent within a limited period of time, because all would agree that
events of the tribulation period will be recognizable. Once that period has begun,
His coming has to occur within a specified number of years. If that is their meaning,
Christ’s warnings to watch for His coming are meaningless until Daniel’s seventieth
week arrives. The church need not watch as He commanded. And when that
prophetic week arrives, imminence will no longer prevail because His coming will
not be totally unexpected. It will have specified events to signal at least approxi-
mately, if not exactly, how far away it is.
Saying the NT teaching of imminence has become garbled in the systems
of pre-wrath rapturism and posttribulationism is not an overstatement. According
to different advocates, it may mean at any moment within the last half of the
seventieth week, at any moment after the seventieth week, during any period rather
than at any moment, at an unexpected moment with some exceptions, possibly at any
moment but not certainly at any moment, or as many other meanings as
nonimminence advocates may conjure up.
Other Indications of Imminence in 1 Thessalonians
In 1 Thess 1:9-10 Paul speaks of his readers’ turning to God from idols for
two purposes: to serve the living and true God and to await His Son from heaven.
The second purpose strikes a note that he continually sounded through his preaching
in the city—the kingship of Christ (Acts 17:7)—and throughout both Thessalonian
epistles—the return of Christ (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:2, 23; 2 Thess 2:1, 8).
Primitive Christianity believed that the resurrected and ascended Christ would return
to establish His kingdom (cf. 1 Thess 2:12) and that His return was near.35 In 1:10
Paul speaks of Jesus as delivering us from the coming wrath when He returns from
heaven, thereby including himself and his first-century readers among those to be
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 207
36James Everett Fram e, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1912) 89. In this connection, see the present tense erchetai in 1 Thess 5:2.
37K. W. Clark, “Realized Eschatology,” JBL 59 (September 1940):379.
38Ibid.
39Ibid., 380.
rescued from that future wrath. In this subtle way he again included himself,
modeling the proper Christian outlook in expecting the return of Jesus at any
moment.
In 1:10 he also speaks of the wrath as “coming” and uses the present
participle ¦DP@:X<0H (erchomens) to qualify the wrath. Though the kind of ac-
tion—aktionsart or aspect—of articular participles is not necessarily stressed in NT
Greek, the frequent use of the present tense of this verb in a futuristic sense to speak
of the imminence of end events probably portrays the imminence of the wrath which
is already on its way and hence could arrive at any moment.36
Another statement of Paul in 1 Thessalonians that is best explained through
imminence is 1 Thess 2:16b: “Now the wrath has come upon them fully.” These
words climax a paragraph in which Paul is uncharacteristically condemning his
fellow-Jews for their part in the crucifixion of Christ and persecuting the prophets
and Paul along with his fellow missionaries. Earlier in v. 16 he speaks of their
forbidding the evangelizing of the Gentiles as an aspect of reaching the limit in
sinning against God (2:16a).
The wrath for which the Jewish people as well as the rest of the world are
destined is the eschatological wrath spoken of in 1 Thess 1:10 and 5:9, a well-known
and expected period just before the Messiah inaugurates His Kingdom. This
pronouncement of the arrival of the wrath brings Paul’s excursus against the Jews
to its logical climax.
Surprisingly, however, Paul does not use a future tense, “will come,” to
speak of the wrath. He uses a past tense, “has come.” The Greek expression is
§N2"F,< ¦B\ (ephthasen epi, “has come upon”), the same combination used by
Jesus in Matt 12:28 and Luke 11:20 to speak of the arrival of the kingdom. “The
kingdom of God has come upon you” were the Lord’s words to His listeners. The
unique force of the verb and preposition in that situation connoted “arrival upon the
threshold of fulfilment and accessible experience, not the entrance into that
experience.”37 The connotation in 1 Thess 2:16 is the same with regard to the wrath.
Just as the kingdom reached the covenant people at Christ’s first advent without their
enjoying “the experience ensuing upon the initial contact,”38 so the wrath that will
precede that kingdom has already come without the Jews’ full experience of it. It
is at the threshold. All prerequisites for unleashing this future torrent have been met.
God has set conditions in readiness through the first coming and the rejection of the
Messiah by His people. A time of trouble awaits Israel just as it does the rest of the
world, and the breaking forth of this time is portrayed as an “imminent condemna-
tion” by the combination ephthasen epi.39 Such a potential presence of the wrath
208 The Master’s Seminary Journal
40Best, First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians 120-21.
41Walvoord proposes a period between the rapture of the church and the seventieth week, during
which ten nations must unite. He writes, “The ten-nation kingdom must be formed in the final seven
years before the Second Coming” (John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook [Wheaton,
Ill.: Victor, 1990] 485; cf. ibid., 487). His diagram of the day of the Lord on 485 clarifies what he
apparently intends by this statement: the day of the Lord begins simultaneously with the rapture, but
includes an undefined period after the rapture and before Daniel's seventieth week during which the
forming of the ten-nation kingdom will occur. See als o his statement, “The time period [i.e., the day of
the Lord] begins at the rapture, but major events do not come immediately. However, if the DOL has
progressed v ery far, there w ill be unmistakable signs that they are in the DOL” (ibid., 492).
Showers also proposes suc h an interval between the rap ture and the beginning of the seventieth
week, during which will occur the regathering of Israel, the emergence of a great world ruler, rebuilding
of the temple in Jerusalem, and a covenant of peace with Israel (Renald E. Showe rs, Maranatha, Our
Lord Come! [Bellmawr, N.J.: The Friends of Israel, 1995] 61). But he differs from Walvoord when he
sees the day of the Lord and the seventieth week beginning simultaneously (ibid., 63), but he has the
rapture occurring at an earlier time because he does not see it as part of the day of the Lord (ibid., 59).
Ryrie's opinion is that the Scriptures are noncom mittal regarding the issue of w hether o r not there
is a time gap between the rapture and the seventieth week: “Though I believe that the Rapture precedes
the beg innin g of the Tribulation, actually no thing is said in the Scriptures as to whether or not some time
(or how much time) may elapse between the Rapture and the beginning of the Tribulation” (Charles C.
Ryrie, Basic Theology [Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1986] 465).
In his comments on Rev 3:10, Jeffrey L. Townsend concurs with the position of this essay regarding
the imminence of the rapture and the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth week when he writes, “Both the
coming of the hour [of testing] and the coming o f the L ord are imminent. . . . There will be preservation
outside the imminent hour of testing for the Philadelphian church w hen the Lord com es” (“The Rapture
in Revelation 3:10,” When the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Thomas Ice and T imo thy Demy [Eugene, O re.:
Harvest House, 1995] 377).
accords with the epistle’s emphasis on an imminent breaking forth of end-time
events, one of which is the time of Israel’s trouble just before the Messiah’s return.40
Dual imminence prevails elsewhere in 1 Thessalonians, not just in chapters
4 and 5. Paul allowed no time between Christ’s coming to catch away the church
to Himself and the beginning of Daniel’s seventieth prophetic week, which coincides
with the opening phase of the day of the Lord.
The dual-imminence teaching results from exegetical evidence found in a
number of NT passages. Various theological objections may be and have been
lodged against such a position. Some may question how the signing of the treaty
between “the prince who is to come” and Israel to begin Daniel’s seventieth week
(Dan 9:26-27) can coincide with the rapture of the church. Such a theological
question has several possible answers. That prince may arise to power before the
rapture of the church, setting the stage for the signing, or the signing of the covenant
with Israel may not occur at the very first moment the seventieth week begins.
Daniel 9 does not seem to require that precise timing. One could propose various
scenarios to answer the theological difficulty that dual imminence allegedly poses.
Exegetical evidence must take precedence over theological considerations, however,
even though specific answers to theological questions that exegetical decisions raise
may not be immediately obvious.41
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 209
42Willi M arxen, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. G . Buswell (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968)
42; Reginald H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1966)
57; No rma n Perrin, The New Testament, An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974)
120.
Paul’s Continuing Support of Imminence in 2 Thessalonians
A major objection to Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been the
epistle’s eschatological perspective that is supposedly different from what 1
Thessalonians teaches. The theory advanced is that 2 Thessalonians upholds a
Christian approach to the doctrine of last things that arose after the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70.42 The principal difference cited is the signs that 2 Thessalon-
ians locates before the arrival of the day of the Lord. That contrasts with the
indication in 1 Thessalonians that the day could come at any moment, without any
prophesied event(s) to precede it. This proposed difference in teaching offered as
a challenge of the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians calls to mind 2 Thess 2:1-3.
Imminence of Our Gathering Together and the Day of the Lord (2:1-3)
Since Paul’s first epistle, the persecuted Thessalonian church had been
beset with false teaching that the day of the Lord had already begun and the
persecutions and afflictions the church was experiencing (1:4) were the initial phase
of that day, coinciding with the pains of a “woman with child” spoken of in the first
epistle (5:3). They should not have had such an impression if Paul had taught them
that Christ’s return for those in Christ would be a single event, an event at the
beginning of the day of the Lord.
Posttribulationists are at a loss to explain how the first-century readers
could have thought themselves to be already in the day of the Lord if that day
occurred simultaneously with the coming of Christ for the church. That leaves no
time for persecution during the day of the Lord. In the first chapter of 2 Thessalon-
ians (1:5-10), Paul had just spoken of how God would afflict the unrighteous and
reward the faithful in the day of the Lord. The readers knew that the opening period
of that day would be tribulation to the ungodly and also a day of persecution for the
saints, so the false teaching had led them to believe that they were already in that
period.
To correct this error, Paul pointed first to “the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our gathering together to Him” (2:1). “Our gathering together to Him”
defines which aspect of Jesus’ coming the writer has in mind and reminds readers
of the great event described in 1 Thess 4:14-17, the gathering of those in Christ to
meet Him in the air en route to be with the Father in heaven. He wanted to
emphasize that the day of the Lord cannot begin on earth before the saints are in
heaven with the Father. Since Christ’s reappearance to take the saints to heaven had
not yet occurred, the day of the Lord could not yet have begun. Therefore, the
apostle asks them not to be shaken or troubled by the false message they had
received (2:2a). The gathering together had not yet occurred; hence the day of the
210 The Master’s Seminary Journal
43F. F. Bruce, “1 & 2 Thessalonians,” in vol. 45 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A.
Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word, 1982) 165; D. M ichael M artin , 1, 2 Thesalonians, in vol.
33 of The New American Comm entary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995)
227-28.
44Cf. Peter C otterell & Max Turner, Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation (Downers G rov e, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 198 9) 24, for this principle as practiced in a ll languages. For ano ther P auline examp le of
such an insertion, see Eph 5:21-22.
Lord had not yet begun.
Paul even specifies what the false teaching consists of. It was proposing
that “the day of the Lord is present” (2:2b). The rendering of the verb ¦<XFJ06,<
(enestken) in 2:2b as “is present” rather than as “has come” or “will come” is very
important, because that is the key to interpreting the difficult verse immediately
following. English versions have, for the most part, consistently mistranslated this
verb. Those with erroneous renderings include the KJV, the RSV, the NASB, the
NASBU, the ESV, the NIV, the ASV, the ICB, and the NKJV. Only three versions
consulted render the verb correctly. Darby renders, “the day of the Lord is present,”
Weymouth has, “the day of the Lord is now here,” and the NRSV gives, “the day of
the Lord is already here.” Either of these captures the intensive force of the perfect
tense enestken. That the perfect tense of ¦<\FJ0:4 (enistmi) means “is present”
cannot be doubted seriously in light of its usage elsewhere in the NT (Rom 8:38; 1
Cor 3:22; 7:26; Gal 1:4; Heb 9:9).43
With the nature of the false teaching clearly in mind, as the next step Paul
urges, “Do not let anyone deceive you in any way” (2:3a), and then furnishes a
reason for knowing that the day of the Lord is not present. The difficulty is Paul’s
assumption of an apodosis to accompany the protasis, “unless the apostasy comes
first and the man of lawlessness is revealed” (2:3b). As is customary in language
usage, Paul chose not to repeat the verb that constitutes the apodosis of the
conditional sentence, thus requiring readers to substitute the parallel antecedent verb
to fill in the blank.44 That verb in this instance is, of course, the enestken from
verse 2. The sense of 2:3b thus becomes, “The day of the Lord is not present unless
the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness is revealed.” Unfortunately, no
English versions consulted render the suppressed apodosis correctly in this verse.
Most give the supplied verb a future sense, such as, “The day of the Lord will not
come,” a change that detracts from the point Paul makes. The issue involved in his
correction of the false information to which the readers had been exposed is not the
future coming of the day of the Lord; it is rather the current presence or non-
presence of that day at the time he writes and they read his words.
Another vital issue to settle in 2:3 relates to the adverb BDäJ@< (prÇton,
“first”) in the first half of the protasis. Two meanings are possible. It can mean that
the coming of the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness precede the
day of the Lord, or it can mean that the coming of the apostasy precedes the
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 211
45Martin (1, 2 Thessalonians 232) notes, “Its [i.e., the adverb prÇton] placement in the sentence
slightly favors the understanding that the apostasy comes ‘first’ and then the law less one is revealed.”
For unstated reasons, he chooses the other option, ho wever.
46(Grand R apids: Baker, 1997). S ee a lso Erickson, Basic Guide to Eschatology 175.
47Gundry, First the Antichrist 20.
48Erickson, A Basic Guide to Eschatology 175.
revelation of the man of lawlessness, both being within the day of the Lord.45 Posed
in grammatical terms, does the “first” compare the total protasis with the apodosis
or does it compare the first half of the protasis with the last half of the protasis?
Typically, pre-wrath rapturists and posttribulational rapturists opt for the
former possibility, i.e., that the apostasy and the revelation of the man of lawlessness
precede the day of the Lord. They base this on the mistranslation of the text in
various English versions. Robert Gundry illustrates this mistake and has entitled one
of his recent books First the Antichrist: Why Christ Won’t Come Before the
Antichrist Does.46 He writes, “. . . Paul says not only that ‘the Day of the Lord’
won’t arrive unless that evil figure ‘is revealed’ but also that ‘the rebellion’ which
he will lead against all divinity except his own (claimed falsely, of course) ‘comes
first’ (2 Thess. 2:1-4).”47 Erickson joins Gundry in using this support for his
posttribulational stance when he writes, “Paul also stated about A.D. 50 that the day
of the Lord could not come (II Thess. 2:2) until the Antichrist and a major apostasy
had come (v. 3).”48 That interpretation is oblivious to the lexical and syntactical
requirements of the Greek text, however, and a brief survey of grammatically
parallel passages shows its inadequacy also.
A close parallel to the set of criteria in 2 Thess 2:3b occurs in John 7:51
where there occur (1) present action in the apodosis, (2) a compound protasis
introduced by ¦< :Z (ean m, “unless”) with the action of both aorist subjunctive
verbs included in the action of the apodosis, and (3) prÇton in the former member
of the compound protasis. John 7:51 reads thus: “Our law does not judge the man
unless it hears from him first and knows what he is doing, does it?” The judicial
process (present indicative of 6D\<,4, krinei, “it judges”) is not carried out without
two parts, hearing from the defendant first and gaining a knowledge of what he is
doing. Clearly in this instance, hearing from the defendant does not precede the
judicial process; it is part of it. But it does precede a knowledge of what the man
does. Here the prÇton indicates that the first half of the compound protasis is prior
to the last half.
Another verse relevant to this set of criteria is Mark 3:27: “No one can enter
the house of the strong man to plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man
and then he will plunder his house.” Here the apodosis is present indicative
followed by ean m and a compound apodosis with verbs in the aorist subjunctive
and future indicative—the future indicative being somewhat interchangeable with
the aorist subjunctive. Because of the J`J, (tote, “then”) in the last half of the
protasis, the prÇton clearly evidences the occurrence of the first half of the protasis
212 The Master’s Seminary Journal
49To this effect J. Christiaan Beker writes, “Paul emphasizes the unexpected, the suddenness and
surprising character of the final theophany (1 Thess 5:2-10)” (Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel 48).
50The only way that both the beginning of the penalty phase and the reward phase of the revelation
can be imminent and still parts of the day of the Lord is for them to be simultaneous. If the reward ph ase
were to come later in the day of the Lord, prophesied events would precede it, thereby removing it from
the catego ry of imm inency. If it were to precede the day of the Lord, the beginning of the day of the L ord
would no longer be imminent as Paul so specifically writes that it will be in 1 Thess 5:2.
before the last half, i.e., the binding of the strong man prior to the plundering of his
house. It does not indicate that the whole protasis is prior to the apodosis, i.e., the
binding of the strong man and the plundering of his house prior to entering the
house. In other words, it indicates that the binding precedes the plundering, but not
the entering, and the entering includes both the binding and the plundering.
Application of these data to 2 Thess 2:3 results in the following: “The day
of the Lord is not present unless first in sequence within that day the apostasy comes,
and following the apostasy’s beginning, the revealing of the man of lawlessness
occurs.” Rather than the two events preceding the day of the Lord as has so often
been suggested, these are happenings that comprise conspicuous stages within that
day after it has begun. By observing the non-occurrence of these, the Thessalonian
readers could rest assured that the day whose leading events will be so characterized
was not yet present.
Assigning these criteria to 2 Thess 2:3 frees Paul from the accusation of
contradicting himself. In 1 Thess 5:2 he wrote that the day of the Lord will come as
a thief. If that day has precursors as 2 Thess 2:3 is often alleged to teach, it could
hardly come as a thief. Thieves come without advance notice or precursors. Neither
does the day of the Lord have any prior signals before it arrives.49 Paul does not
contradict that meaning in 2 Thess 2:3. He still clings to the imminence of the
wrathful phase of the day of the Lord.
Alienation Coinciding with Glorification (2 Thess 1:9-10)
In 2 Thess 1:3-5a Paul offers thanks to God for the perseverance of his
Thessalonian readers as they face severe persecution because of their stand for
Christ. He considers this a sign of their healthy spiritual development. Then in vv.
5b-10 he turns to discuss the righteous judgment of God that will include a payback
to their persecutors and a reward for faithful believers. That judgment by God will
impose “tribulation on those who afflict you” (1:6)—an extended period—and “rest
to you who are afflicted” (1:7a)—a momentary happening. Both the tribulation’s
beginning and the rest will come in conjunction with “the revelation of the Lord
Jesus from heaven” (1:7b).
Further description of the judgment includes the payment of the penalty of
eternal separation from the presence of God (1:9) “when He comes to be glorified
in [the midst of] His saints and to be marveled at among all those who believe”
(1:10a). The penalty’s beginning and the reward phases of His return are simulta-
neous as indicated by the ÓJ"< (hotan, “when”) that begins 1:10.50 The last four
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 213
words of v. 10 fix both as occurring “in that day” (¦< JÁ º:XD ¦6,\<®, en t2
hmera2 ekein2). “That day” is a frequent technical designation for the day of the
Lord in both the Old and New Testaments (e.g., Isa 2:11, 17, 20; 4:2; Joel 3:18;
Mark 13:32; 14:25; Luke 21:34; 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8). Paul has referred to the
penalty phase of the day of the Lord in 1 Thess 5:2-3, 9 as a period of wrath, a
period whose beginning will come as a thief in the night. He will refer to the day of
the Lord again in 2 Thess 2:2. Thus when he uses “that day” in the eschatological
framework of 2 Thess 1:10, the context indicates conclusively that the expression
refers to the day of the Lord. “That day” is a period that will be climaxed with the
personal return of Christ to judge the offenders (2 Thess 1:7-8). But 2 Thess 1:10
also connects Christ’s return to be glorified among believers with “that day,” i.e., the
day of the Lord. This is an event that will occur at the very beginning of the day of
wrath. It is the same event referred to in 1 Thess 4:17 as a “catching away,” in 2
Thess 1:7a as “rest,” and in 2 Thess 2:1 as “our gathering together to Him.” Here
is a specific tie-in between the rapture of the church and the beginning of the day of
the Lord. They are simultaneous. Both are imminent. This is the moment of reward
for those who have faithfully persevered in all their trials and persecutions (cf. 2
Thess 1:4).
The connection between the rapture and the day of the Lord in 2 Thess 1:9-
10 reinforces the conclusion that the same connection exists between 1 Thess 4:13-
18 and 5:1-11. The rapture and the beginning of that day will be simultaneous, and
both could come at any moment.
Summary of Paul’s Teaching on Imminence
See Chart 4 on page 214 for a summary of Paul’s emphasis on imminence
in 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
The Pervasiveness of Imminence Teaching
The ancient fathers were right. The teaching of imminence pervades the
NT in connection both with Christ’s return for the church and with His return to
initiate the wrathful phase of the day of the Lord. Jesus Himself initiated the NT
teaching on imminence with such parabolic figures as the coming of a thief and the
master at the door. Various NT writers picked up on these figures and used them to
teach imminence also. Paul was one of them, particularly in his Thessalonian
epistles where he continued Jesus’ emphasis on the imminence of His return to
deliver the saints and to begin the earthly phase of God’s wrath against a disobedient
world.
If both the rapture of the church and the beginning of the day of the Lord
are occurrences that could come at any moment, the timing of the rapture is not open
for debate. The only way that both events could be imminent is for them to be
simultaneous. If one preceded the other even by a brief moment, the other would not
be imminent because of the sign provided by the earlier happening. This fact
constitutes strong biblical support for the pretribulational rapture.
214 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Imminence serves as an encouragement for the saints to persevere in godly
living and as a warning to others to repent before becoming victims of the wrath of
a righteous God. May we shape our lives and our teaching to perpetuate these strong
biblical emphases.
Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles 215
Chart 4—Paul’s Teaching of Imminence
in 1 and 2 Thessalonians
Coming Wrath Coming Deliverance
1 Thess 1:10
“the coming wrath”
(a hint of imminence in the
present participle erchomens)
“to await His Son from hea-
ven, . . . Jesus who delivers
us” (a hint of imminence in
the concept of awaiting)
1 Thess 2:16
“the wrath has come upon
them fully” (wrath is immi-
nent, at the threshold)
1 Thess 4:13–5:11
“the day of the Lord will come
as a thief in the night” (5:2;
imminence of the wrath spo-
ken of in 5:9)
“We who live and remain will
be caught up with them in the
clouds for a meeting with the
Lord in the air” (4:17; expec-
tation associated with immi-
nence of deliverance from im-
minent wrath, promised in
5:9)
2 Thess 1:6-10
“tribulation” (1:6), “ven-
geance” (1:8), “eternal destruc-
tion” (1:9; imminence of “that
day” in 1:10)
“rest” (1:7), “when He comes
to be glorified at among His
saints and marveled at among
those who believe . . . in that
day” (1:10; imminence of
“that day” in 1 Thess 5:2)
2 Thess 2:1-3
“the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ and our gathering to-
gether to Him” (2:1; “the day
of the Lord is not present” un-
less the apostasy occurs as a
part of that day, followed by
the revelation of the man of
lawlessness, 2:3)
1Robert H. Gu ndry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 64.
2Many boo ks dealing with the rapture include sections specifically discussing the book of
Revelation. Examples in clude the following: [Pretribulation al] A llen Beech ick, The Pre-tribulational
Rapture (Denver: Accent Books, 1980) 161-89; Russell L. Penney, “The Rapture of the Church and the
Book of Revelation,” A Bible H and book to Revelation, ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001)
187-96; Joh n F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1979) 253-68; [Midtribulational] James O. B usw ell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian
Religion, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 19 63) 2:424-53 8; [P re-w rath] Marvin R osenthal, The Pre-
wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Nelson, 1990) 17 9-86; [P osttribulational] Gundry , The Church
and the Tribulation 64-88; Douglas J. Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulational Rapture Position,” The
215
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 215-239
THE RAPTURE AND
THE BOOK OF REVELATION
Keith H. Essex
Assistant Professor of Bible Exposition
The relevance of the book of Revelation to the issue of the timing of the
rapture is unquestioned. Assumptions common to many who participate in
discussing the issue include the authorship of the book by John the apostle, the date
of its writing in the last decade of the first century A.D., and the book’s prophetic
nature in continuation of OT prophecies related to national Israel. Ten proposed
references to the rapture in Revelation include Rev 3:10-11; 4:1-2; 4:4 and 5:9-10;
6:2; 7:9-17; 11:3-12; 11:15-19; 12:5; 14:14-16; and 20:4. An evaluation of these
ten leads to Rev 3:10-11 as the only passage in Revelation to speak of the rapture.
Rightly understood, that passage implicitly supports a pretribulational rapture of the
church. That understanding of the passage fits well into the context of the message
to the church at Philadelphia.
* * * * *
“As the major book of prophecy in the NT, Revelation has great pertinence
to discussion of the rapture.”1 Participants in the discussion concerning the timing
of the rapture would concur with this statement. Proponents of a pretribulational,
midtribulational, pre-wrath, and posttribulational rapture all seek support for their
positions in the book of Revelation.2 Many suggestions as to where Revelation
216 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulational? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 196-205; Alexander Reese,
The Appro aching Advent of C hrist (Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975) 73-94.
3Michael J. Svigel, “The Apocalypse of John and the Rapture of the Church: A Reevaluation,”
Trinity Journal 22NS (2001):24.
4Each of the ten proposals merits a separate article; however, the scope o f the p resent study limits
this article to cursory treatments. For further insights, the reader is directed to three recently published
exegetical comm entaries on Revelatio n: D avid E. Aune, Revelation 1–5, vol. 52A of Word Biblical
Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1997 ); David E . Au ne, Revelation 6–16, vol. 52B of W ord Biblical
Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 1998); D avid E . Au ne, Revelation 17–22, vol. 5 2C of W ord Biblical
Commentary (Nashville: Nelson , 1998); G. K. Be ale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the
Greek Text, in The New International Greek Testament Comm entary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999);
Robert L. Thoma s, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992); Robert L.
Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chica go: M oody, 1995). A fourth work, Grant
R. Osborne, Revelation, in The Baker Exegetical Comm entary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), was
unavailable at the time of writing.
explicitly or implicitly refers to the rapture of the church have been forthcoming.
The present article purposes to survey the proposals about where Revelation refers
to the event and to ascertain which proposal best accords with the data discovered
in the book.
Michael Svigel states, “One must ask where the Rapture is found in the
Revelation before one asks the question of when the Rapture is said to take place,
if, indeed, the timing of the event is even asserted by the context.”3 This article will
first state the assumptions concerning the book of Revelation held by almost all
evangelical participants in the rapture discussion. The debate about the where and
the when of the rapture should not obscure the agreement on many essential issues
concerning the book among the disputants. They acknowledge most of these
common assumptions as the basis on which the question of the rapture is argued.
Second, the greater part of the following discussion will concentrate on ten passages
in Revelation that have been proposed as references to the event. Each proposal
will be presented and evaluated.4 The evaluations will lead to the conclusion that the
rapture is implied in Rev 3:10-11. Therefore, third, a brief exposition of Rev 3:7-13
will describe how the understanding of future events by the author of Revelation
corresponds to that of the apostle Paul and is consistent with a pretribulationalrapture
view.
Common Assumptions concerning the Book of Revelation
Only a limited number of biblical commentators mention the issue of the
rapture and the book of Revelation. Bigger issues claim the attention of most writers
on the book. Among evangelical authors who do discuss the rapture’s relationship
to Revelation, widespread agreement prevails among many on three assumptions
concerning introductory and interpretive issues.
The Author of the Book
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 217
5D. A. C arso n, D ouglas J. M oo, and Leon Morris present the early Christian testimony and the
contemporary discu ssion con cerning the authorship of Revelation (An Introduction to the New Testament
[Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 199 2] 468-72). They conclude, “We are thus inclined to accept the testimony
of those who were in a position to know about these matters, and we attribute both books [the Fourth
Gospel and Revelation] to John the apostle, ‘the beloved disciple’” (ibid., 472). Everett F. Harrison
reaches a similar conclusion (Introduction to the N ew Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971] 467-
72).
6Scripture references in this article are from the New American Stan dard Bible, 1971 edition.
7A previous article in this issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal by Robert L. Thomas,
“Imminence in the NT, Especially Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles,” reaches a similar conclusion that the
origin of the NT writers’ eschatological understanding, especially concerning imminence, “was none
other than Jesus Himself” (TMSJ 13/2 [Fall 2002]:192-99).
The first common assumption is that the author is John. He refers to
himself as “John” four times in the book (1:1, 4, 9; 22:8). This has been understood
in accordance with the testimony of the early church fathers as a reference to John
the apostle.5 Two implications emerge from this view of authorship. First, John
was present with the other apostles when Jesus gave His Olivet Discourse as
recorded in Matt 24:1–25:46. He was also a part of the apostolic group whom Jesus
taught “the things concerning the kingdom of God”6 (Acts 1:3). Therefore, the
framework of the author’s understanding of future events goes back to Jesus
Himself.7 John’s eschatological framework received from Christ included:
1. Israel’s rejection of Jesus as Messiah delayed the establishment of the
messianic Kingdom and resulted in the desolation of Israel’s temple (Matt
23:37-38; 24:2).
2. During the present age, Jesus will build His church. (Matt 16:16-19; Acts
1:6-8).
3. Jesus will personally come again to take His disciples to the dwelling
places He is preparing for them in heaven (John 14:2-3). This return for
His disciples is imminent (1 John 3:2).
4. The second coming of Jesus Christ to the earth will be preceded by a period
of tribulation for Israel and the nations (Matt 24:3-28) which will culminate
in Israel’s acceptance of Jesus as Messiah (Matt 23:39).
5. Jesus will return to the earth to establish His messianic Kingdom, which
will include righteous Israelites and Gentiles (Matt 24:29–25:46).
Second, John writes of the second coming of Jesus Christ in other NT
books (John 14:1-3; 1 John 2:28; 3:2). In John 14:2, the apostle records Jesus’
words concerning His Father’s house to which He was going to prepare a place for
His disciples. The Father’s house must refer to heaven because Jesus ascended into
heaven, having been exalted to the right hand of God after His earthly life (A cts
2:33-34). John 14:3 states Jesus’ promise to His disciples, “And if I go and prepare
a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there
218 The Master’s Seminary Journal
8Richard L. Mayhue notes, “The phrase ‘wherever I am,’ while implying continued presence in
general, here means presen ce in heaven in particular. . . . In John 14:3, ‘where I am’ must mean ‘in
heaven’ or the intent of 14:1-3 would be wasted and worthless” (Sna tched Before the Storm! [Winona
Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1980 ] 13).
9Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduc tion to the New Testament 473-76; Harrison, Introduction
to the New T estam ent 472-75.
10Kenne th L. Gentry, Jr., “A Preterist View of Revelation,” Four Views on the Book of Revelation,
ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998) 37-38.
11Ibid., 45-46.
you may be also.” The return of Christ for His disciples would result in the disciples
being with Jesus in heaven.8 John implies that this coming again of Jesus, the Son
of the Father, for His little children is an imminent event (1 John 2:28) and that the
hope of being like Jesus when believers see Him is a purifying hope (1 John 3:2-3).
The Date of the Book
There is also a common assumption regarding the date of writing. A few
evangelical scholars would put the book of Revelation early during the time of the
Roman emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68) in the mid to late 60s. But following the
testimony of the early church, most would date its appearance during the reign of the
emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96) in the last decade of the first century, between ca.
A.D. 90-95.9 When John states, “I . . . was on the island called Patmos, because of
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (1:9), Domitian’s persecution against
the church caused this exile, according to the early church fathers.
This dating negates the preterist position. Kenneth Gentry, Jr., argues for
the preterist viewpoint. He writes,
“Preterism” holds that the bulk of John’s prophecies occur in the first century, soon after
his writing of them. Though the prophecies were in the future when John wrote and
when his original audience read them, they are now in our past. . . . The preterist view
does understand Revelation’s prophecies as strongly reflecting actual historical events,
though they are set in apocalyptic drama and clothed in poetic hyperbole.10
For Gentry, Revelation is prophetic, speaking about the future from the time of John
and his audience until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Most of the events
referred to in the book were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D . 70. To posit
this, he has to argue that the book was written before A.D. 70.11 But if the book was
written in A.D. 90-95, his view is wrong.
Further, the later date assumes that the author and the original readers knew
about Paul’s letters. Approximately thirty years earlier, the apostle Peter had written
to churches in northern Asia Minor that the apostle Paul had written “some things
hard to understand” (2 Pet 3:16). This shows that the apostle Paul’s writings had
extended beyond the churches addressed and that they were becoming known
throughout the NT church, particularly the churches in Asia Minor. Included in the
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 219
12Beale, The Book of Revelation 76-99, discus ses the use of th e OT in the book of Revelation. The
Apocalypse contains more OT references than any other NT book. Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel
are the OT books most used with Daniel as the most influential. Beale quotes with the approval the
evaluation of I. Fransen, “The familiarity with the O ld Testam ent, w ith the spirit w hich lives in the Old
Testament, is the most essen tial condition for a fruitful reading o f the Apocalypse” (97).
Pauline corpus was the teaching concerning the rapture, particularly in 1 Thess 4:13-
18 and 1 Cor 15:35-58. Therefore, it is reasonable that John and his audience
already accepted three very vital truths concerning the future rapture. First, the
future coming of Christ for the church will include the bodily resurrection of the
dead in Christ and the bodily transformation of those Christians still living. Paul
made it clear that “the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and
remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:16b-17). This will be an
instantaneous change for those who are alive when Christ returns, as explained in
1 Cor 15:52-53, “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. . . . For this perishable
must put on the imperishable.” Second, this “catching up,” the rapture of the church,
will result in Christians always being with the Lord from that point on. Third, and
most important, the rapture of the church will be a distinct event or a distinct phase
of the second coming of Christ. John’s audience in Revelation recognized that this
distinct event or distinct phase, the rapture of the church, will precede the actual
coming of Jesus Christ physically to this earth to establish His millennial Kingdom.
By how much time it will precede that actual coming depends on whether the
catching up will be pre-wrath, pre-, mid-, or posttribulational.
The Prophetic Nature of the Book
The third common assumption about the book of Revelation is that it is a
prophetic writing. John claimed to be a prophet. Revelation 22:9 states, “I am a
fellow-servant of you and of your brethren the prophets.” John is a NT counterpart
of the OT prophets and he refers to his writing as prophecy (1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19).
The book claims to be a word of prophecy from God the Father through Jesus Christ
to His bondservant John for the church (1:1). The original audience was the seven
churches of Asia Minor (1:4, 11, 20). But many writers assume that the writing was
recorded for the churches, not only of that time era, but also as Scripture for the
church of Jesus Christ in the church age. The prophecy of Revelation is in
continuity with the OT prophets,12 looking forward to God’s ultimate design for His
creation. The OT prophets also looked ahead at what the destiny was for God’s
creation, a destiny which many accept to be particularly the future repentance of the
nation of Israel (Hos 14:1-8; Zech 12:10-14), the coming of the Messiah (Zech 14:3-
4), the restoration of Israel to their land (Ezek 37:24-28), and the establishment of
the prophetic kingdom (Isa 9:6-7). The OT prophets also dealt with how Gentile
nations fit into the program God had for Israel’s future (Isa 2:2-4). John is in
continuity with those OT prophets. This is the background against which John gives
his word of prophecy.
220 The Master’s Seminary Journal
13These four interp retive approaches to R evelation are succinctly described in John M acA rthur, The
MacArthur Study Bible ([N ashville: Word, 1997] 1990). “The preterist approach interprets Revelation
as a description of first century events in the Roman Empire. . . . The historicist approach views
Revelation as a panoramic view of church history from apostolic times to the present. . . . The idealist
approach interprets Revelation as a timeless depiction of the cosmic struggle between the forces of good
and evil. . . . The futurist approach insists that the events of chaps. 6–2 2 are yet future, and that those
chapters literally and symbolically depict actual people and events yet to appear on the world scene.”
An exposition of preterism is presented by Gentry, “A Preterist View of Revelation,” Four Views on the
Book of Revelation 37-92. In the same volume appears Sam Hamstra, Jr., “An Idealist View of
Revelation” 95-131.
14Anthony A. H oekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) 170-71.
15Keith A. M athison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1999) 223-33.
16Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Expanded Edition 7.
Almost all believe that a futuristic perspective is the key to interpreting
Revelation because it is a prophetic book. M any view all the visions recorded in
4:1–22:5 as referring to events that are still in the future. This viewpoint is in
contrast to the preterist, historicist, and idealist viewpoints.13
Further, the premillennial perspective holds the coming of Christ to the
earth to precede the establishment of the millennial Kingdom. This premillennial
position is in contrast to the amillennial and postmillennial positions. Amillennialist
Anthony Hoekema incorporates the rapture as one element in the posttribulational
return of Christ. He writes,
We conclude therefore that there is no Scriptural basis for the two-phase Second Coming
taught by pretribulationalists. The Second Coming of Christ must be thought of as a
single event, which occurs after the great tribulation. When Christ returns, there will be
a general resurrection, both of believers and unbelievers. After the resurrection, believers
who are then still alive shall be transformed and glorified (I Cor. 15:51-52). The
“rapture” of all believers then takes place. Believers who have been raised, together with
living believers who have been transformed, are now caught up in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air (I Thess. 4:16-17). After this meeting in the air, the raptured church
continues to be with Christ as he completes his descent to earth.14
In a similar fashion, postmillennialist Keith Mathison locates the bodily resurrection
of all believers at the second coming of Christ, which will occur after the millen-
nium.15 John Walvoord is correct when he observes, “In general, discussion of the
rapture of the church continues to be limited to those holding the premillennial
interpretation, with liberal interpreters and amillenarians largely ignoring the
subject.”16
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 221
17Robert H. M ounce, The Book of Revelation, in The New International Commentary on the New
Testament, rev ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 119.
18Svigel, “The Apocalypse of John and the Rapture of the Church: A Reevaluation” 25.
19David G. Winfrey, “The Great Tribulation: Kept ‘Out of’ or ‘Through’?” Grace Theological
Journal 3 (1982):5.
The Proposed “Rapture” Passages in Revelation
Some commentators on Revelation aver that the rapture is a Pauline
teaching that is not to be expected in John’s Apocalypse. For example, Robert
Mounce opines, “It should be noted, however, that the very discussion of a ‘rapture
of the church’ lies outside John’s frame of reference. He knows nothing of such a
‘rapture.’”17 However, it has been shown above that John and his audience would
have known of Paul’s teaching and would have been expected to incorporate it into
their understanding of future events. Svigel’s conclusion on this issue is to be noted:
However, if we comprehend the book as being John’s accurate reporting of revelatory
visions from heaven, the issue of whether or not John was aware of the doctrine of the
Rapture is insignificant. While acknowledging the divine prerogative to the contrary,
one cannot help but expect God to reveal something of the Rapture in his last great
apocalyptic message to the Church. In sum, one cannot excise the Rapture from the
Apocalypse simply because it is a Pauline and not a Johannine doctrine if the book is a
presentation of revelatory visions from heaven. The issue then is not whether it is Pauline
or Johannine, but whether it is true.18
The rapture can be expected either explicitly or implicitly in Revelation.
Therefore, this section will state and evaluate the different proposals about where
in the book it is found.
Revelation 3:10-11
The most important and most widely discussed of the proposed passages
where the rapture is referred to in the book is Rev 3:10-11: “‘Because you have kept
the word of My perserverance, I will also keep you from the hour of testing, that
hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the
earth. I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your
crown.’” David Winfrey writes, “If there is a ‘proof text’ for the pretribulational
position, it is Rev 3:10.”19
The Proposal. J. Dwight Pentecost articulates the pretribulational
understanding of this passage:
222 The Master’s Seminary Journal
20John uses the verb J0DXT (treÇ, “to keep”) twice in 3:10. He first uses the aorist active indicative
¦JZD0F"H (etrsas, “you kept,” cf. 3:8). Secondly, he uses the future active indicative J0DZFT (trsÇ,
“I will keep”). The preposition ¦6 (ek, “from, out of, away from”) follows the second usage of the verb.
21Pentecost cites Josep h Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, (New York:
American Book, 1889) 622.
22J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1958) 216.
23Gerald B. Stan ton, Kept from the Hour (Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Company,
1991) 46-50.
24Ibid., 50.
“I will keep thee from the hour of temptation.” John uses the word treÇ.20 Thayer says
that when this verb is used with en it means “to cause one to persevere or stand firm in
a thing”; while when it is used with ek it means “by guarding to cause one to escape in
safety out of.”21 Since ek is used here it would indicate that John is promising a removal
from the sphere of testing, not a preservation through it. This is further substantiated by
the use of the words “the hour.” God is not only guarding from the trials but from the
very hour itself when these trials will come on those earth dwellers.22
Gerald Stanton derives four facts from Rev 3:10. First, this promise applies
not only to one local assembly existing in the days of the apostle John but to the
entire church of Jesus Christ. The constant refrain in all seven messages from Christ
to these churches is “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches” (2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). Second, the trial which is coming is not
local, but is “about to come upon the whole world.” The persecutions of the past
were usually limited to one country or area. This trial must refer to the tribulation
to come when all the world will be “amazed and follow after the beast” (13:3), and
all who worship him will come under the wrath of God (13:8; 14:9-11). Third,
“those who dwell on the earth” is not a suitable description for the members of the
church (cf. Phil 3:20; Heb 11:13). Fourth, the grammar of J0DXT ¦6 (treÇ ek),
though not conclusive, favors ‘removal from’ the hour of trial.23 Stanton concludes,
In the words “I come quickly” [3:11] may be seen the rapture, and the reference to “thy
crown” [3:11] suggests the Bema seat judgment to follow. “Because thou hast kept the
word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come
upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” Here, then, is a promise which
clearly indicates the pretribulation rapture of the Church.24
Evaluation. As would be expected, those who do not subscribe to the
pretribulational position have taken issue with this understanding of 3:10-11. The
earliest challenge was represented in the writings of Alexander Reese and George
Ladd. While they accept the position that 3:10 is applicable to the church and the
hour of testing is a portion of the tribulation period, they argue that treÇ ek is better
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 223
25Reese states “[M]any of the most competent Greek scholars unhesitatingly maintain that the use
in Rev. iii. 10 of the preposition ek from out of the midst of—not merely out of—is precisely the
consideration that demands the very oppo site conclusion to that which pre-tribs wish. According to these
scholars the Greek means that C hrist promised the Angel at Ph iladelphia preservation throughout the hour
of tribulation” (The Ap proaching Advent of C hrist 201). George E. Ladd writes, “[T]he promise of
Revelation 3:10 of being kep t ek the hour of trial n eed not be a promise of a removal from the v ery
physical presence of tribulation. It is a promise of preservation and deliverance in and through it” (The
Blessed Hope [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956] 85-86).
26Ladd, The Blessed Hope 85. The same argument is presented b y Reese, The Approaching Advent
of Christ 203-4.
27Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ 204-5.
28Walvoord, The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition 66.
understood as ‘deliverance through’ rather than ‘kept from’ in this verse.25 Both
refer to John 17:15 and Gal 1:4 in support of their understanding of treÇ ek in Rev
3:10. Ladd argues succinctly:
This language, however, neither asserts nor demands the idea of the bodily removal from
the midst of the coming trial. This is proven by the fact that precisely the same words
are used by our Lord in His prayer that God would keep His disciples “out of the evil”
(trss ek tou ponrou, Jn. 17:15). In our Lord’s prayer, there is no idea of bodily
removal of the disciples from the evil world but of preservation from the power of evil
even when they are in its very presence. A similar thought occurs in Galatians 1:4,
where we read that Christ gave Himself for our sins to deliver us from (literally, “out of,”
ek) this present evil age. This does not refer to a physical removal from the age but to
a deliverance from its power. “This age” will not pass away until the return of Christ.26
Reese also adds Heb 5:7 in his presentation:
The same lesson is taught in a remarkable passage in Heb. v., where we read that our
Lord, in Gethsamane, “had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and
tears unto him that was able to save him from (ek,out of) death, and was heard in that he
feared” (v.7). Here is a case where we know that the Lord suffered and passed through
death, and yet was saved out of it. Anything more decisive than this passage could not
be wished for.27
Pretribulationalists have countered these assertions by pointing out the John 17:15,
Gal 1:4, and Heb 5:7 are not directly analogous to Rev 3:10. Walvoord declares,
“The thought of the Greek is to ‘keep from,’ not ‘keep in.’ The promise was to be
kept from ‘the hour’ of trial, not just the trials in the hour.”28
The pretribulational position concerning 3:10-11 has also been discounted
by some who declare that the promise was given for the Philadelphian church only.
J. Barton Payne represents this position. According to Payne, most of the prophecies
concerning tribulation in Revelation have already been fulfilled and the coming of
Christ is imminent. The church at Philadelphia no longer exists, so the promise has
224 The Master’s Seminary Journal
29J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) 78-79. Aune
concurs, stating, “Unfortuna tely, bo th sides of the d ebate have ignored the fact that the promise m ade here
pertains to Philadelphian Christians only and cannot be generalized to include Christians in other churches
of Asia, much less all Christians in all places and times” (Revelation 1–5 240).
30Thomas remarks, “By means of this call the message to a single congregation is extended to all
the churches of Asia and through them, as representatives, to the church throughout the world”
(Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Comm entary 150).
31Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation 54-61.
32Ibid., 55-59 [transliteration added].
33Ibid., 59-60.
34Ibid., 60-61.
35The most sign ificant responses to Gundry on Revelation 3:10 are: Thomas R. Edgar, “Robert H.
Gundry and Revelation 3:10,” Grace Theological Journal 3 (1982):19-49; John A. Sproule, In Defense
of Pretribulationalism (W inona Lake, IN.: BMH Books, 1980) 26-30; Jeffrey L. Townsend, “The Rapture
in Revelation 3:10,” Bibliotheca Sacra 137 (1980):252-66, reprinted in When the Trumpet Sounds, eds.
Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995) 367-79; Winfrey, “The Great
Tribulation: Kept ‘Out’ of ‘Through’?” 3-18.
36Townsend, “Th e Rapture in Revelation 3:10” 253-59 [transliteration added].
to refer to a historical trial endured by the Philadelphian church when Christ kept
them from harm.29 However, the recurring refrain “what the Spirit says to the
churches” does expand the application of what Christ said specifically to the other
seven churches of Asia and to the other churches who would hear the book of
Revelation read.30
The latest and most vigorous posttribulational discussion on 3:10 is that of
Gundry who devotes almost seven pages to this passage.31 He argues that treÇ here
means “to keep, by guarding to cause one to escape in safety out of” and that ek
means to “emerge from out of.” Putting the terms together, he states, “[W]e
properly understand J0DXT ¦6 (treÇ ek) as protection issuing in emission.”32
Further, he argues from the usage of the term “hour” in the Gospels (Matt 26:45;
Mark 14:35, 41; John 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; 12:23, 27; 13:1; 17:1) that the emphasis falls
on the experience within the time, rather than on the period of time as such. “Stress
does not lie on the period per se, but upon the prominent characteristics of the
period.”33 Gundry concludes that the church will be guarded and preserved during
God’s testing of earth-dwellers during the tribulation, emerging from out of it in the
parousia at the close of the hour of testing, the events clustered around
Armageddon.34
Gundry’s discussion of Rev 3:10 has produced a number of pretribulational
responses.35 Jeffrey Townsend surveys the use of ek in classical literature, the LXX,
Josephus, and the NT and concludes, in contrast to Gundry, “However, sufficient
evidence exists throughout the history of the meaning and usage of ¦6 (ek) to
indicate that this preposition may also denote a position outside its object with no
thought of prior existence within the object or of emergence from the object.”36
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 225
37Ibid., 259.
38Ibid., 259-60. Posttribulationa list George La dd concurs: “Here is a distinct eschatological
reference to the ‘messianic woes’ which are to precede the return of the Lord. . . . This period is referred
to elsewhere in the Bible in Dan. 12:2; Mark 13:14 and parallels; II Thess. 2:1-12” (A Commentary on
the Revelation of John [Grand Rapids: E erdmans, 1972] 62).
39Townsend, “The Rapture in Revelation 3:10” 262-63.
40Sprou le, In Defense of Pretribulationalism 29-30 [transliteration added].
When used with treÇ, “Revelation 3:10 may then be paraphrased, ‘Because you
have held fast the word which tells of My perserverance, I also will preserve you in
a position outside the hour of testing. . . .’”37 Townsend also counters Gundry’s
contention concerning the meaning of ‘the hour.’ He writes:
The preservation promised the Philadelphians is in relation to a specific period of time.
This is indicated by the inclusion of JH [ts, “the”] as an article of previous reference.
Jesus is speaking of the well-known hour of testing which is a reference to the expected
time of trouble, the tribulation period, before the return of Messiah (Deut. 4:26-32; Isa.
13:6-13; 17:4-11; Jer. 30:4-11; Ezek. 20:33-38; Dan. 9:27; 12:1; Zech. 14:1-4; Matt.
24:9-31). This period is graphically portrayed in Revelation 6–18 (cf. “the great
tribulation,” 7:14; and “the hour of His judgment,” 14:7).38
Townsend concludes that although 3:10 describes the result of the rapture and not
the rapture itself, the promise to the church to be kept in a position outside of the
tribulation establishes the pretribulational rapture as the most logical deduction from
this verse.39
John Sproule also interacts with Gundry’s arguments concerning Rev 3:10.
He has pertinent observations concerning Gundry’s view of the church’s preserva-
tion in the tribulation:
[I]f Gundry’s view of Revelation 3:10 is correct, then one is left with the colossal
problem of reconciling the fact that multitudes of believers will die under the fierce
persecution of the Antichrist during the Tribulation and yet God supposedly will preserve
His people physically through the Tribulation. . . . Gundry tries to alleviate the problem
of so many believers perishing during the Tribulation by strongly suggesting that the
“hour of testing” referred to in Revelation 3:10 occurs as the “last crisis at the close of
the Tribulation” (pp. 48, 61) and that it will affect only wicked earth-dwellers at that
time since the church will be removed by rapture (J0DZFT ¦6 [trsÇ ek]) just prior to
this moment (sometime during the initial stage of the bowl judgments). This only
compounds his problem, if he sticks by his definition of ¦6 [ek]. Since he insists that ¦6
[ek] in Revelation 3:10 must be “out from within,” then, for the promise to the church in
Revelation 3:10 to hold true, the church will have to be within that “hour of testing”
(divine wrath, according to Gundry) before they can be rescued “out from within” it.40
Winfrey’s objective is to compare Rev 3:10 with John 17:15, the two NT
passages that use the phrase treÇ ek, and to demonstrate that it implies previous
226 The Master’s Seminary Journal
41Winfrey, “The Great Tribulation: Kept ‘Out of” or ‘Through’?” 5-10.
42Edgar, “Robert H. Gundry and Revelation 3:10” 22-26.
43Ibid., 26-46.
44An excellent presentation of the pretribulational exegesis of Revelation 3:10-11 is found in
Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary 283-91.
existence outside the specified sphere in both passages. John 17:15 reads, “I do not
ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.”
Winfrey compares John 17:15 with John 17:11b-12a. In the latter verses, Jesus asks
the Father, “Keep them [the disciples] in Thy name” and affirms “While I was with
them, I was keeping them in Thy name which Thou hast given Me.” There is a
parallelism between “in Thy name” (17:11) and “from the evil one” (17:15). These
two expressions describe spheres of power which are mutually exclusive. The
disciples are in the Father’s power even though they remain in the world, which is
under Satan’s power. Though the disciples are in the world, Jesus prays that they
would be preserved in their saved lives and be kept from experiencing eternal
perdition (cf. 17:12b). “Keep from the evil one” implies the disciples belong to the
Father through their relationship with Jesus and will be preserved from the fate of
Judas. Winfrey concludes, “This phrase [treÇ ek] must mean preservation outside
the evil one’s power in John 17:15 and preservation outside the hour of temptation
in Rev 3:10.”41
Thomas Edgar interacts with Gundry’s definition of J0DXT (treÇ) and his
contention the preposition B` (apo, “from, away from, out of”) would be more
appropriate for a pretribulational view of Rev 3:10. Edgar observes that Gundry has
committed the grammatical impossibility of separating the verb and the prepositions
into two separate acts. Gundry claims that the verb means “protection within a
sphere of danger” and the preposition means “emergence from within.” In this way,
Gundry arrives at his conclusion that treÇ ek refers to protection through most of
the Tribulation with emission near the end of the Tribulation. But this gives the
impossible meaning of “I will keep you in out.” However, the verb and its
accompanying prepositional phrase are to be viewed as one action. The verb simply
means “to keep or guard” with the preposition indicating the direction, location, or
sphere of the keeping. In 3:10, treÇ ek simply means “keep from.”42 Additionally,
Edgar analyzes the preposition ek. Of its 923 NT uses, the primary stress of the
preposition is “away from” or “from.” Even though this usage overlaps apo, John
prefers ek in his writings over apo. Thus, ek is the preposition the reader would
expect John to use in 3:10 to express “I will keep you aw ay from the hour of trial.”43
In conclusion, pretribulational writers have presented both a sound
argument that their understanding of Rev 3:10-11 is the most probable and enough
rebuttal arguments to opposing w riters to give a high probability that a
pretribulational rapture is implied by John.44 However, although John affirms the
what—the church will be kept out of the tribulation by the coming of Christ, he does
not explicitly state the how—through the event of the rapture. Thus, if there is
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 227
45J. A. Seiss writes, “That door opened in heaven is the door of ascension of the saints. That trumpet
voice is the same which Paul describes as recalling the sleepers in Jesus. . . . And that ‘COME UP
HITHER’ is for everyone in John’s estate” (The Apocalypse [reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1950]
96).
46John F. Walvoord states, “Thoug h there is no au thority for connecting the rapture with this
expression [‘come up hither”], there does seem to be a typical representation of the order of events,
namely, the church age first, then the rapture, then the church in heaven” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ
[Chicago: Moody, 1966] 103).
47Thomas, Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Comm entary 333.
48See Thomas (ibid.) for a thorough exegesis of 4:1-2 (333-41); he specifically counters those who
refer these verses to the rapture (336-37).
another clear passage in the book of Revelation that speaks of the event of the
rapture, it might call into question the when of the rapture that seems to be implied
in 3:10-11. Therefore, before returning to see if near and far context support the
pretribulational understanding of these verses, a survey of other proposed “rapture”
passages continues.
Revelation 4:1-2
Some pretribulationalists argue that Revelation 4:1-2 refers to the event of
the rapture. The biblical text states, “After these things I looked and behold, a door
standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I heard, like the sound of a
trumpet speaking with me, said, ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take
place after these things.’ Immediately I was in the spirit; and behold, a throne was
standing in heaven, and One sitting on the throne.”
The Proposal. The first use of “after these things” refers to this event as
being after the church age. The mention of heaven, a voice, and a trumpet (cf. 1
Thess 4:13-18) with the command to “come up here [to heaven]” and John’s
entrance into heaven points to this event being the rapture.45 Thus the rapture is
between the end of the church age and the beginning of the tribulation.46
Evaluation. The evidence points to this being a statement of John’s
personal experience in the first century and not the church’s future experience. The
expression “after these things” marks the beginning of a new vision for John (cf. 7:9;
15:5; 18:1; 19:1).47 According to 1:10, the first voice like a trumpet that John heard
was the voice of Jesus Himself (1:12-16); therefore, the voice referred to here is that
of Jesus, not that of the archangel at the rapture. John is summoned by Jesus to
heaven to receive revelation of future events. This occurs “in the spirit”; John is
transported spiritually to heaven while his body remains on Patmos.48 Tenney
cogently observes, “There is no convincing reason why the seer’s being ‘in the
Spirit’ and being called to heaven typifies the rapture of the church any more than
his being taken into the wilderness to view Babylon [17:3] indicates that the church
228 The Master’s Seminary Journal
49Merrill C. T enney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957) 141.
50Charles Caldwell Ryrie states, “Most other premillennial writers understand them to be twenty-
four redeemed human beings around the throne who, thoug h individuals, represe nt all the redeem ed. . . .
By either interpretation [they represent Israel and the church saints or the church saints alone] the church
is included and is thus in heaven before the tribulation begins” (Revelation. Everym an’s Bible
Commentary [C hicago: Moody, 1968] 35-36).
51Pentecost, Things to Come 255. Pentecost articulates seven reasons why these elders represent
the church (253-58): 1. the number twenty-four represents the entire priesthood (1 Chron 24:1-4, 19), and
the church is the only body that could fulfill the priestly function before the tribulation because OT and
tribulation saints must wait until the millennium for the realization of their priestly function; 2. the elders
sit on thrones and the church has been promised this position (Matt 19:28; Rev 3:21); 3. their white
raiment suggests the imputed righteousness of the believer (Rev 3:4-5); 4. the victor’s crowns (stephanos)
assume that the elders have known conflict, sin, pardon, and victory; 5. their worship of God because of
His acts of creation (Rev 4:11), redemption (Rev 5:9), judgment (Rev 19:2), and reigning (Rev 11:17)
suggest the elders represent the church; 6. the elders have an intimate knowledge of the program of God
(Rev 5:5; 7:13-14; cf. Joh n 15:15); 7. they are associated with Christ in a priestly ministry (Rev 5:8).
52Beechick, The Pretribulational Rapture 174-77.
53See Aune, Revelation 1–5 287-9 2; B eale , The Book of Revelation 322-26; Thomas, Revelation
1–7: An Exegetical Commentary 344-49.
is there in exile.”49
Revelation 4:4; 5:9-10
Revelation 4:4 gives the first mention of the twenty-four elders: “And
around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four
elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns upon their heads.”
These elders are also mentioned in 4:10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; and
19:4. Many pretribulational writers have argued that their presence in heaven during
the tribulation is proof that the rapture has already taken place.50
The Proposal. “The twenty-four elders represent the saints of this age, the
church, resurrected and translated into the heavenlies.”51 Beechick presents a four-
step argument on why the twenty-four elders prove a pretribulational rapture. First,
the elders must be men because in the Bible only men are elders, sit on thrones
(except for God and Satan), wear white raiment, and wear the crowns of victory.
Second, the elders are wearing the crowns of victory on their heads. Third, the time
for men to receive these crowns is at the coming of Christ, not before (2 Tim 4:8; 1
Pet 5:4). Fourth, if men’s crowns are received at the second coming of Christ
[points one to three above] and if these twenty-four elders are men wearing crowns,
then there must have been a coming of Christ previous to this. If all these points are
correct, the rapture must be pretribulational.52
Evaluation. Three problems arise with the proposal that the mention of the
elders proves the pretribulational rapture. First, many have attempted to identify the
twenty-four elders of Revelation, but no solution has found complete acceptance.53
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 229
54Pretribulationalist Thomas (Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Commentary) argues for the angelic
viewpoint (348-49).
55Simon J. Kistemaker w rites, “The traditional interpretation of the twenty-four elders is that this
number is the total of twelve times two, namely, twelve Old Testament patriarchs and twelve New
Testament apostles, the representatives of those redeemed by Christ” (Exposition of the Book of
Revelation. New Testam ent Commentary [Grand Rapids: B aker, 2001] 187).
Good reasons exist to demonstrate that the elders are a special class of angels rather
than men. The elders are always grouped with angels in Revelation; in 7:14 one of
the elders even functions as an agent of revelation as angels do throughout the book
(cf. 1:1; 17:3; 22:6). Also, white apparel is a characteristic of angels (cf. Matt 28:3;
John 20:12; Acts 1:10). Further, the crown (FJXN"<@H, stephanos) had a variety of
uses in the ancient world besides being a victor’s crown.54
Second, many of the commentators who argue that the elders are men see
them as representative of both Israel and the church.55 If OT saints are not
resurrected until the end of the tribulation period (Dan 12:1-2), then NT saints may
be resurrected at that time also. The elders represent non-resurrected believers
already in the presence of God according to this viewpoint. Third, even if the elders
represent the church alone, the text does not specifically mention the rapture as the
means of their heavenly arrival. Again, they may only represent non-resurrected
Christians who have died and are then in the presence of God. In short, the mention
of the twenty-four elders in the book of Revelation does not prove the pretribulation-
al rapture.
Revelation 6:2
A final proposal from a pretribulational author concerns Revelation 6:2,
“And I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a
crown was given to him; and he went out conquering, and to conquer.”
The Proposal. Zane Hodges argues that the rider on the white horse in 6:2
is the same individual as the rider on a white horse in 19:11-16, Jesus Christ. He
proposes that 6:2 is a description of Christ’s coming for His church:
Yet another illuminating point, however, is to be gleaned from the aura of mystery which
surrounds the first horseman of Revelation 6, but which is dispelled in resplendent glory
in Revelation 19. It is this: in Revelation 6, the rider issues forth before any of the
judgments of the tribulation are presented, whereas in Revelation 19 the rider issues forth
after all these judgments have been recorded. Precisely so, the triumphant Christ will
ride forth prior to the great tribulation as well as after it. And thus there is suggested in
Revelation 6 that initial aspect of the second advent known as the rapture of the church.
Indeed, it cannot be doubted that one of the great triumphs of the Lord Jesus will be the
moment when His bride—whom He desires ultimately to display to a wondering
world—is snatched from a hostile earth and, victorious over her every enemy, is caught
up to meet Him in the air. In this light, additional significance attaches to the fact that
the rider of Revelation goes forth “conquering.” The rapture then would be the very first
230 The Master’s Seminary Journal
56Zane C. Hodges, “The First Horseman of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 119 (1962):330.
57Aune, Revelation 6-16 393-95; Beale, The Book of Revelation 375-78; Thomas, Revelation 1–7:
An Exegetical Commentary 419-24; Daniel K. K. Wong, “The Firs t Horsem an of Revelation 6,”
Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1996):212-26.
58The chart is based on John McLean, “Chronology and Sequential Structure of John’s Revelatio n,”
in When the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Ice and Demy 326.
of the many triumphs which this horseman sets out to achieve.56
Evaluation. There have been many proposals as to who the rider on the
white horse in 6:2 is.57 The main reason some have argued for Christ is the fact that
this anonymous horseman rides a white horse which is specifically what Christ rides
at His return to the earth in 19:11. However, there are distinct contrasts between the
two horsemen. The first horseman is anonymous, but the second is called “Faithful
and True”; the first has a crown (FJXN"<@H, stephanos), but the second has many
diadems (*4"*Z:"J", diadmata) (19:12); the first comes alone, but the second is
accompanied by the armies of heaven (19:14); the first carries a bow, but the second
has a sharp sword (19:15); and the first is followed by war, famine, and death, but
the second defeats His enemies and ushers in the millennium (19:17–20:6). Further,
a distinct parallelism exists between the four horsemen of Rev 6:2-8 and the future
conditions predicted by Christ in Matt 24:5-11; Mark 13:6-8; and Luke 21:8-11, as
the chart below illustrates:58
Conditions Revelation 6 Matthew 24 Mark 13 Luke 21
False Messiahs 25, 11 68
Wars 46-7 79
Famines 5-6, 8 7810
Pestilences 811
As one can observe, the first horseman of Revelation parallels the false messiahs
predicted by Jesus Christ. Thus the first horseman must represent the Antichrist or
a movement that he will lead. Revelation 6:2 is not a description of the rapture.
Revelation 7:9-17
Pre-wrath advocates propose that Rev 7:9-10a— “After these things, I
looked, and a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all
tribes and people and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb,
clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with
a loud voice . . .”—speaks of those raptured by Christ. Those advocates divide
Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan 9:27) into three periods: the first three and a half
years are “The Beginning of Sorrows” (cf. Matt 24:8), followed by “The Great
Tribulation” which occurs after “The Abomination of Desolation” (cf. Matt 24:14,
21), which is less than three and a half years because it is cut short (cf. Matt 24:22),
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 231
59Rosenthal, The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church 103-13.
60Ibid. 179-8 6; R obert V an Kampen, The Sign (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1993) 305-18.
61Rosenthal, The Pre-wrath Rapture of the Church 183-84.
62Ibid., 184-85.
63Beale equates the great multitude of 7:9-17 with the 144,000 of 7:1-8 and as the same group
referred to in 5:9, the innu merable true Israelite descendants of Abraham (The Book of Revelation 426-
31). Aune distinguishes the great multitude and the 144,000, though the larger group probably includes
the smaller group, and argues that the multitude are Christians who suffer martyrdom during the
eschatological tribulation (Revelation 6-16 466-67, 480). Thomas also distinguishes the two groups of
Revelation 7, but concludes that the multitude is tribulation saints who die either natural or violent deaths
(Revelation 1–7: An Exegetical Comm entary 484-85).
followed by the pouring out of God’s wrath in “The Day of the Lord” at the end of
the final three and a half years.59
The Proposal. They place the rapture of the church between “The Great
Tribulation” and “The Day of the Lord,” thus locating it before the pouring out of
God’s wrath, a pre-wrath rapture. They argue that the great multitude described in
Rev 7:9-17 is the raptured church.60 Rosenthal cites four reasons why the great
multitude of Revelation 7 is a different group from the faithful martyrs seen in
heaven in Revelation 6 as having been slain by the Antichrist. First, they are too
numerous and international to have become believers during the relatively short
period of Daniel’s seventieth week. Second, the martyrs are souls under the altar
asking God to avenge their blood (6:9-10); in contrast, the multitude is praising God
for salvation (7:10). Third, the martyrs are described as “souls,” whereas the
multitude is seen as “clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands”
(7:9). The martyrs are souls—the multitude has bodies. Fourth, in Revelation 6
John recognizes the martyrs, but in Revelation 7 he does not recognize who the
multitude is, showing they are a different group.61 He concludes, “This great
multitude, innumerable, universal, and suddenly appearing in heaven with white
robes (purified) and palm branches (trium phant), is the raptured church.”62
Evaluation. The interpretation of the great multitude has been varied, but
7:14 clearly states that these believers came out of “the great tribulation.”63 They do
not represent all the believers of the church age. Renald Showers shows that there
are two problems with equating the great multitude with the raptured church:
1. One of the twenty-four elders indicated that the people who make up the great
multitude come out of the Great Tribulation (Rev. 7:13-14). This means that all the
people who make up the great multitude will be on earth during the Great
Tribulation, making it a partial rapture of the church. . . . By contrast, the Bible
indicates that all church saints will be raptured together as one body at the same
time (1 Thess. 4:13-18).
2. The Greek present tense of the main verb in the elder’s statement indicates that the
232 The Master’s Seminary Journal
64Renald E. Showers, “The Prewrath Rapture,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal
Couch (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 357. See also Show ers, The Pre-Wrath Rapture View: An
Examination and Critique (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001) 139-51.
65Mounce remarks, “It is m ore likely, however, that they are not tw o ind ividu als bu t a symbol of the
witnessing church in the last tumultuous days before the end of the age” (The Book of Revelation 217).
66Mounce states, “The triumph of the w itnesses is no secret rapture; it is openly visible to all (cf.
Matt. 24:27 ; 1 T hess. 4:17 )” (ib id., 223). Buswell views the two witnesses as individuals. However, he
sees their midtribulational rapture occurring at the same time as that of the church. He w rites, “It is my
opinion that in the coming to life and Rapture of the two witness (Rev. 11:11ff.) we have an exact
synchronization of events. The two witnesses are caught up into heaven ‘in the cloud’ at the same
moment that the elect of G od are caught up together in clouds to the meeting of the Lo rd in the air (I
Corinthians 15:52; I Thessalonians 4:13-18)” (A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion 2:456).
67Aune (Revelation 6-16 610 -11, 631-32) and Beale (The Book of Revelation 572-75) interpret the
two witnesses as representative of the whole community of faith, the witnessing church of the last days.
However, Thomas (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary 86-89) avers that they are two
individuals, probably Moses and Elijah.
people who make up the great multitude do not come out of the Great Tribulation
at the same time, but one by one, continuously, throughout the course of the Great
Tribulation, apparently through death. This again contrasts with the manner in
which the church will be raptured from the earth.64
Revelation 11:3-12
Some midtribulationists have argued that Rev 11:11-12 describes the
rapture. In recounting the activities of the two witnesses, John writes, “And after the
three days and a half the breath of God came into them, and they stood on their feet;
and great fear fell upon those who were beholding them. And they heard a loud
voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here.’ And they went up into heaven
in the cloud, and their enemies beheld them.”
The Proposal. The two witnesses introduced in 11:3 are identified as
representing the church.65 Thus, the experience of the witnesses in Revelation is
symbolic of the church. The church will testify to Christ, suffer persecution and
supposed defeat, only to be resurrected from the dead when a voice from heaven will
call and she will go up in the cloud.66 The terms “dead,” “voice,” and “cloud”
parallel 1 Thess 4:16-17, and thus refer to the rapture.
Evaluation. The central issue with the two witnesses is whether they are
two specific individuals or symbolic of a group.67 The best interpretation views
them as two individuals, because their activities mirror those of Elijah (“power to
shut up the sky” [11:6; cf. 1 Kgs 17:1]) and Moses (“power to turn the water into
blood and to smite the earth with every plague” [11:6; cf. Exod 7:14-21; 9:14;
11:10]), and because they are verbally linked with Joshua and Zerubbabel (11:4; cf.
Zech 4:2, 3, 11-14). Therefore they do not symbolically represent the church.
Further, their ascension into heaven (11:12) is modeled on ascensions of Elijah (2
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 233
68Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion 2:458-59.
69Aune (Revelation 6-16 637-38) and Beale (The Book of Revelation 611) do not mention 1 Cor
15:52 in their discussions of the last trumpet in Rev 11:15. Thomas specifically notes that they are not
the same (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Com mentary 104).
Kgs 2:11) and Jesus (Acts 1:9) when eyewitnesses saw them go up into a cloud. By
contrast, the rapture of believers will apparently happen instantaneously, not
gradually as here (cf. 1 Cor 15:51-52).
Revelation 11:15-19
Some, especially midtribulationalists, suppose the rapture to coincide with
the sound of the last trumpet spoken of in Rev 11:15: “And the seventh angel
sounded; and there arose voices in heaven, saying, ‘The kingdom of the world has
become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and
ever.’”
The Proposal. Buswell argues for the blowing of the trumpet of
Revelation 11:15 as heralding the rapture:
(1) The seventh trumpet announces the time of rewards for the righteous dead
(Revelation 11:18).
(2) The time of the rewards for the righteous dead is “at the resurrection of the
righteous” (Luke 14:14). . . .
(3) The resurrection of the righteous takes place at the same moment, “twinkling of an
eye,” at which the saints who are alive when Christ comes again will be changed
and made immortal (I Corinthians 15:52).
(4) This same moment is predicted as occurring “at the last trumpet” (I Corinthians
15:52).
(5) The moment of the resurrection of the righteous, of rewards for the righteous dead,
of the change to immortality of the living saints, of the last trumpet is the moment
of the rapture of the saints who will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (I
Thessalonians 4:13-18).68
Evaluation. The majority of commentators do not correlate the seventh
trumpet of Rev 11:15 with 1 Cor 15:52.69 The last trumpet in 1 Corinthians 15 is the
final summons to the church. As such it correlates to the trumpet of God at the
rapture of the church (1 Thess 4:16). In contrast, the trumpet in Revelation 11 is the
seventh sounded by an angel as the last of seven judgments for which the angels
blow trumpets. It is referred to by John as the third “woe” (11:14), the final
judgments of God which will lead to establishment of Christ’s kingdom (11:15b-18).
This trumpet in Revelation is a harbinger of God’s final wrath upon the world, not
a summons to God’s resurrection blessing for His church as in 1 Corinthians.
Further, neither of these trumpets is the last one, only the last in a given series,
because another trumpet will sound at the second coming of Christ to regather Israel
(Matt 24:31; cf. Isa 27:13). Thus the trumpet of Rev 11:15 is not the herald of the
234 The Master’s Seminary Journal
70For a more extensive discussion on identity of the trumpets in 1 Corinthians 15 and Revelation
11, see Pentecost, Things to Come 188-9 2, and Sta nton, Kept from the Hour 192-98.
71Svigel, “The Apocalypse of John and the Rapture of the Church: A Reevaluation” 53-74.
72Ibid., 54-56.
73Ibid., 56-67.
74Ibid., 62-65.
75Ibid., 67.
76Ibid., 53. Aune (Revelation 6-16 68 7-90), w ith re serv ations; Be ale, (The Book of Revelation 639-
42); and Thom as (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Comm entary 125-26) assert that the male child is Jesus
Christ.
church’s rapture.70
Revelation 12:5
Svigel, who offers no conclusion as to when the rapture will take place,
argues that the only explicit reference to the rapture of the church in the book of
Revelation is 12:5.71 The verse states, “And she gave birth to a son, a male child,
who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God
and to His throne.”
The Proposal. On the basis of genre, context, and lexical analysis, Svigel
presents his case for identifying the rapture with the catching up of the male child
in 12:5. The genre of the book of Revelation is “apocalyptic/prophetic” which
communicates its message through images, referents, and allusions that the
interpreter must identify.72 The three symbolic personages of Rev 12:1-6 are the
woman who symbolizes the true Israel of faith of the OT and NT, the dragon who
symbolizes both the world system throughout history and the ruler of that system,
Satan, and the male child who symbolizes Jesus Christ and His corporate body, the
church (based on the allusion to Isa 66:7-8).73 Lexical analysis demonstrates that
DBV.T (harpazÇ, “snatch away”) is used thirty-nine times in the LXX and fourteen
times in the NT, always with the idea of sudden, unexpected removal. It is the verb
used by Paul in 1 Thess 4:17 for the rapture of the church. The verb occurs only in
Rev in 12:5. In the NT it never refers to the ascension of Christ.74 Svigel concludes,
“The ‘snatching up’ of the male child, then, would be equated with the catching up
of the church described in 1 Thess. 4:17.”75
Evaluation. Svigel himself observes that commentators on Revelation
have either overlooked or rejected this interpretation of 12:5.76 The traditional
interpretation of the male child throughout the history of the church has been
messianic, it refers to Jesus Christ. John clearly states that the woman’s son, a male,
is about to fulfill the messianic promise of Ps 2:8-9. Within the context of the book
of Revelation, this can refer only to Jesus Christ (cf. 19:15). The “snatching away”
of 12:5 refers to the ascension of Christ into heaven where He escaped Satan’s
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 235
77Gleason L. Archer, Jr., “The Case for the Mid-seventieth-week Rapture Position,” in The Rapture:
Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulational 142-43; Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation 83-84.
78Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation 83-84.
79Beale, The Book of Revelation 770-7 2; Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary 218.
Aune argues that “one like a son of man ” is an angel (Revelation 6-16 800-801).
80Aune, Revelation 6-16 801-3, 839-45; B eale, The Book of Revelation 772-7 3; T homas, Revelation
8–22: An Exegetical Commentary 219-21.
hostility until the time He will return to the earth to establish God’s Kingdom. Thus
12:5 is not a statement of the rapture of the church.
Revelation 14:14-16
Midtribulationalist Gleason Archer, Jr., and postribulationalist Rober Gun-
dry identify Rev 14:14-16 as the passage in the book most likely to refer to the
rapture.77 The biblical text reads, “And I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and
sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head,
and a sharp sickle in His hand. And another angel came out of the temple, crying
out with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, ‘Put in your sickle and reap,
because the hour to reap has come, because the harvest of the earth is ripe.’ And He
who sat on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth; and the earth was reaped.”
This precedes a second gathering of the earth described in 14:17-20 which is clearly
identified with the wrath of God (14:19). This second harvest is clearly one of
judgment.
The Proposal. Gundry clearly states the argument:
In 14:14-20 two harvests are reaped, the first by one like a son of man on whose head
rests a golden crown, the second by an angel who casts his harvest into the winepress of
God’s wrath. The first harvest (vv. 14-16) is best taken as symbolic of the rapture. For
the phrase “one like a son of man” identifies both the reaper of the first harvest and, in
John’s first vision, Christ Himself (1:13; cf. John 5:27). Immediately we think of “the
son of man coming on the clouds of the sky” (Matt. 24:30) and Paul’s comparison of the
resurrection and translation of Christians to a harvest (1 Corinthians 15:13, 35ff.). The
“white cloud” on which sits the reaper in John’s vision corresponds to the clouds
associated with the Parousia in Matthew 24:30; Acts 1:9-11; and 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
The special dignity indicated by the golden crown also points to the Lord.78
Evaluation. The identification of the reaper of 14:14-16 as Christ is correct
(cf. Dan 7:13; Rev 1:13).79 However, based on clear OT allusions, the reaping must
be one of judgment (Isa 17:5; 18:4-5; 24:13; Jer 51:33; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:13; Mic
4:12-13).80 The first harvest (Rev 14:14-16) gives the general view of Christ’s
judgment of the earth, while the second harvest (Rev 14:17-20) concentrates
particularly on that part of humanity thrown into the great winepress of God’s wrath.
Because Rev 14:14-16 gives a picture of Christ’s judgment, it is not symbolic of the
236 The Master’s Seminary Journal
81Moo, “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position” 200-201. See the similar interpretation
in Ladd (A Commentary on the Revelation of John 263-68), but without the specific mention of the
rapture of the church.
rapture.
Revelation 20:4
The final passage in the book of Revelation where the rapture is believed
to be found is 20:4, “And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was
given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of the
testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not
worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark upon their upon
their forehead and upon their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for
a thousand years.” According to most posttribulationalists, this verse includes the
rapture.
The Proposal. In 20:4 John describes the “first resurrection” (20:5).
Several reasons demonstrate that this resurrection will include all believers. First,
verse 4 mentions at least two groups of believers. One group includes the believers
who sit on thrones judging; the other group includes the “tribulation” saints who
were martyred and did not worship the beast. Second, these believers who will be
resurrected “will be priests to God and of Christ and will reign with Him” (20:6).
Revelation 5:9-10 refers to these priests as coming from “every tribe and tongue and
people and nation.” Thus the church must be included in this group. Third, John
describes only two resurrections in 20:5. The “first resurrection” must have
temporal force since it is contrasted with a “second.” There can be no resurrection
before this first one in 20:4. These two resurrections must include all the dead, with
believers participating in the first. Fourth, John would be expected to include the
resurrection of believers in his portrait of the end times. “For these reasons, it is
probable that Revelation 20:4 depicts the resurrection of all the righteous
dead—including church saints. Since the Rapture occurs at the sam e time as this
resurrection, and the first resurrection is clearly posttribulational, the Rapture must
be considered posttribulational.”81
Evaluation. Three problems arise when Rev 20:4 is viewed as depicting
the rapture. First, although John speaks in this verse of resurrection, “they came to
life,” he does not mention the rapture, the “snatching away” of church saints. The
posttribulationalist can only argue the probability of the rapture in 20:4 based upon
his understanding of other biblical texts. Second, beginning in 19:11, John narrates
an apparent sequence of events associated with the second coming of Jesus Christ
to the earth and its effects. These progressive scenes in this sequence are marked off
by the statement of John “I saw” (19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, 11, 12). Based on 1 Thess
4:13-18, the posttribulational expectation would be that the rapture would be
simultaneous with the return of Christ as recorded in 19:11-16. If the rapture is
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 237
82Walvoord remarks, “One of the most damaging portions of Scripture on the posttribulational
Rapture is the fact that the resurrection in Revelation 20:4-5 occurs, not at the time of the second coming
of Christ, but probably some days thereafter” (The Rapture Question: Revised and Enlarged Edition 267).
83Aune, Revelation 17-22 1084-85 ; Th omas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary 413-14.
84Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary 414; Svigel, “The Apocalypse of John and
the Rapture of the Church: A Reevaluation” 51-53.
85Because of the limited scope of this article, only the interpretive conclusions reached by the author
will be presen ted here. F or th e exegetical foundation of th ese conclusion s, consult Thomas, Revelation
1–7: An Exegetical Commentary 269-94.
associated with 20:4, it will occur after the second coming of Christ to the earth.82
Third, the identity of the saints sitting on the thrones and judging in 20:4a has been
a point of discussion among commentators on the book.83 They are definitely a
different group from the tribulation saints who will be resurrected in 20:4b. Within
the immediate context the other group associated with Christ is “the armies which
are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean” who will follow Christ to earth
on white horses (Rev 19:14).84 These saints must have been resurrected by rapture
before the events of 20:4. Thus the “first resurrection” must come in phases, and is
not associated with the events recorded in 20:4 only.
Conclusion
An evaluation of the different proposals set forth concerning where the
rapture is referred to in the book of Revelation has led to the conclusion that there
is no explicit mention of the rapture in the book, at least not in the Pauline
terminology (harpazÇ, 1 Thess. 4:17). The most probable passage referring to the
rapture is Rev 3:10-11, which is Jesus’ affirmation through John that the church will
be kept out of the tribulation by the coming of Christ. A brief exposition of Rev 3:7-
13 is in order to see if the eschatological scheme of John corresponds to that of the
apostle Paul.
An Exposition of Rev 3:7-13
These verses comprise the sixth of seven messages communicated by Jesus
Christ to select churches in the Roman province of Asia, the churches that were the
immediate addressees of the book of Revelation. Christ’s message here gives
assurances based on certain eschatological realities.85
The Address of Jesus Christ (3:7a)
The message is addressed by Jesus Christ to the human messenger of the
local church in the city of Philadelphia. It is the responsibility of this messenger, in
some way controlled by Christ (cf. 1:20), to communicate accurately what Christ had
led the apostle John to write. The messenger is possibly the reader of the contents
of the book to the congregation (cf. 1:3).
238 The Master’s Seminary Journal
The Attributes of Jesus Christ (3:7b)
Jesus begins, as in each of the seven messages, by affirming characteristics
about Himself which are especially pertinent to the particular church being
addressed. To the Philadelphian church He declares four attributes that belong to
Him. First, He is the holy one, the uniquely set apart one who is deity. He is truly
Israel’s God, even though the Jews of Philadelphia rejected His messianic claims (cf.
3:9). Second, He is the true One. As deity, His words are completely reliable.
What He assures the church will certainly come to pass. Third, He has the key of
David. Christ is the One who will exercise authority over the Davidic Kingdom
when it is established on the earth in the future (cf. Isa 22:22). Fourth, He is the One
who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens. He has the
authority and power to admit or exclude from David’s future kingdom. Jesus alone
will determine who enters the future millennial Kingdom.
The Appraisal of Jesus Christ (3:8a, c)
Jesus knows the deeds of the church. He is aware that the church has
limited influence in the city because of their numerical smallness. However, in the
past, the church had been faithful to proclaim the gospel and to affirm that Jesus is
the Messiah, even in the face of outward Jewish antagonism.
The Assurances of Jesus Christ (3:8b, 9-12)
Because of the past faithfulness of the Philadelphian church, and in
anticipation of their future faithfulness, Jesus gives eschatological assurances to
these believers.
The Certain Entrance into the Davidic Kingdom (3:8b). The One who
has authority over David’s Kingdom assures the church that He has put an open door
before them that no one, including their Jewish opponents, can shut. Jesus, and not
the Jews, determines that they will enter the future millennial Kingdom, and the
Philadelphian believers will certainly enter (cf. 19:14; 20:4a). Paul also anticipates
Christ’s future authority over an earthly kingdom (1 Cor 15:25) in which Christian
believers will participate (1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5).
The Present Conversion of Some Jews to Jesus Christ (3:9a). Even
though the Jews who make up the synagogue at Philadelphia claim to be God’s
people, in reality they are lying because they are doing the deeds inspired by Satan.
Nevertheless, some of the presently unbelieving and antagonistic Jews in the near
future will be converted to follow Jesus as Messiah because of the faithful
presentation of the gospel. Paul also speaks of the faithful remnant of Jewish
believers during this age (Rom 11:5)
The Future Conversion of All Israel to Jesus Christ (3:9b). Ultimately,
in the future Kingdom, repentant Israel will worship Jesus as the Messiah. Though
the Jews presently scoff at the claim that Christ loves the church, that attitude will
change when Israel repents. Paul too looked forward to the future salvation of Israel
The Rapture and the Book of Revelation 239
(Rom 11:26).
The Future Keeping of Christians from the ‘Tribulation’ Period (3:10).
Because the church had in the past exhibited the same kind of endurance on behalf
of the truth of God that Christ displayed while on earth, Christ promised to keep
them out of the time when God would put earth dwellers to the test, a test to reveal
their unrepentant hearts (9:20-21). This time of testing is about to happen at any
moment and will engulf the whole world. Paul also encourages believers with the
assurance that they would not experience the coming wrath of God (1 Thess 1:10,
5:9).
The Imminent Future Return of Jesus Christ (3:11). The event that
would keep the church out of the hour of testing is the return of Christ for His
church. Christ could return suddenly and unexpectedly (cf. 22:7, 12, 20). The near
return of Christ means the believers need to continue to be steadfast in their devotion
to Christ until He returns. Their steadfastness will assure them of their reward of life
(2:10) when He returns for them. Paul reveals that the coming of Christ for His
church will take place at the rapture (1 Thess 4:17).
The Future Rew ard for the Christians (3:12). These Philadelphian
Christians should look forward to an eternally secure relationship with God and a
secure identity with God, the New Jerusalem, and Jesus Christ. These assurances
will be realized in the eternal state (21:1–22:5). Paul can also speak of a future
delivering up of Christ’s Kingdom to the Father and the resultant eternal state (1 Cor
15:24).
The Admonition of Jesus Christ (3:13)
What the Spirit says to the church at Philadelphia is applicable to every
church throughout the church age.
Therefore, a correlation exists between the eschatologies of Paul and John.
Both write of the present conversion of a Jewish remnant to Christ, the future
deliverance of the church from the tribulation period by the return of Christ for His
church, the future salvation of ethnic Israel, the participation of the church in the
millennial Kingdom of Christ, and the ultimate reward for Christians in the eternal
state. In Rev 3:10-11, John reveals an eschatological what—the church will be kept
out of the tribulation by the coming of Christ for His church. In 1 Thess 4:13-18,
Paul reveals the how—through such an event as the rapture. Correlating John and
Paul gives the when—the rapture of the church will be before the tribulation.
241
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 241-253
WHY A PRETRIBULATIONAL RAPTURE?
Richard L. Mayhue
Senior Vice President and Dean
Professor of Pastoral Ministries and Theology
This article raises four key questions: (1) What does “rapture” mean?; (2) Will
there be an eschatological “rapture”?; (3) Will the “rapture” be partial or full?;
and (4) Will the “rapture” be pre, mid, or post in a time relationship to Daniel’s
seventieth week? In answering the fourth question concerning the time of the
rapture, seven major lines of reasoning produce the conclusion that a
pretribulational rapture best fits the biblical evidence and raises the fewesst
difficulties. By way of conclusion, the article answers thirteen of the toughest
objections to pretribulationism.
*****
For over thirty years I have studied the Scriptures in a sincere attempt to
formulate a satisfying biblical answer to the question, “Why should I believe in a
pretribulational rapture?” In the process of research, reflection, and finally writing,
I have attempted to eliminate the kinds of simplistic or twisted approaches and
illogical thought patterns that might bring serious doubts on a conclusion, if not even
directly invalidate the results.
Every rapture position has its overzealous defenders who have employed
unacceptable reasoning or flawed methodology to prove the point. Some of the
less-than-satisfactory approaches that I have observed in the rapture debate include:
1. Putting non-biblical, historical documents on an equal par with Scripture
to gain a greater sense of authority for one’s conclusion or even to refute
a biblical presentation.
2. Reading current events into the Scripture to prove one’s point.
3. Inserting one’s predetermined position, without first proving it, into a
Scripture passage to gain apparent biblical support.
4. Attacking the character of one who holds a particular view in order to
discredit the view.
5. Accusing an advocate of an opposing view of holding certain unacceptable
242 The Master’s Seminary Journal
interpretations or beliefs, when in fact he does not, in order to demonstrate
falsely his apparent poor scholarship.
6. Employing selective data to make one’s point, when full disclosure w ould
have actually weakened the conclusion.
7. Drawing unwarranted and erroneous implications from the Greek NT text
that are used to override the more obvious and determinative conclusions
derived from the passage’s context.
The following four questions will be raised and answered in this attempt to
present a convincing response to the ultimate question at hand, “Why a
pretribulational rapture?”
1. What does “rapture” mean?
2. Will there be an eschatological “rapture”?
3. Will the “rapture” be partial or full?
4. Will the “rapture” be pre, mid, or post in a time relationship to Daniel’s
seventieth week?
The scope of this article does not allow for discussing the chief deficiencies
of other positions. This task I leave to other writers for the time being. However,
the central purpose of this discussion is to describe the superiority of pretribulation-
ism as taught in major eschatological texts such as Matthew 24–25; 1 Thessalonians
4; 1 Corinthians 15; and Revelation 3, 6–18. It will not be the weight of any one
reason that makes pretribulationism so compelling, but rather the combined force of
all the lines of reasoning.
What Does “Rapture” Mean?
The English noun/verb “rapture” comes from the Latin noun raptura/verb
rapio which refers to the Greek word DBV.T (harpazÇ) that is used 14 times in the
NT. The basic idea of the word is “to remove suddenly or snatch away.” It is used
by the NT in reference to stealing/plundering (Matt 11:12; 12:29; 13:19; John 10:12,
28, 29) and removing (John 6:15; Acts 8:39; 23:10; Jude 23).
There is a third use, which focuses on being caught up to heaven. It is used
of Paul’s third heaven experience (2 Cor 12:2, 4) and Christ’s ascension to heaven
(Rev 12:5). Obviously, harpazÇ is the perfect word to describe God suddenly taking
up the church from earth to heaven as the first part of Christ’s second coming.
However, the term itself contains no hint of the rapture’s time in relationship to
Daniel’s seventieth week.
Will There Be an Eschatological “Rapture”?
First Thess 4:16-17 unquestionably refers to a rapture that is eschatological
in nature. Here, harpazÇ is translated “caught up” (NASB).
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 243
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then
we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to
meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord.
Without employing harpazÇ, but by using similar contextual language, 1
Cor 15:51-52 refers to the same eschatological event as 1 Thess 4:16-17.
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in
a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound,
and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
Thus, it can be assuredly concluded that Scripture points to the fact of an
eschatological rapture, even though neither of these foundational texts contains an
explicit time indicator.
Will the “Rapture” Be Partial or Full?
Some have suggested that the rapture spoken of in 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1
Cor 15:51-52 will only be a partial rapture, not a rapture of all who believe. They
reason that participation in the rapture is not based upon one’s true salvation but
rather is conditional, based upon one’s deserving conduct.
This theory rests on NT passages that stress obedient watching and waiting,
e.g., Matt 25:1-13; 1 Thess 5:4-8; Heb 9:28. The result would be that only part of
the church is raptured and those who are not raptured would endure through a
portion of or through the entire seventieth week of Daniel. However, these biblical
texts which supposedly teach a partial rapture are better understood as differentiating
between true believers who are raptured and merely professing ones who remain
behind. Texts that refer to the final aspect of Christ’s second coming are often used
mistakenly to support the partial-rapture theory.
The partial rapture theory not only fails to be convincing because of a
conclusion that the context of allegedly supporting passages will not support, but it
also fails to be compelling for numerous other reasons. First, 1 Cor 15:51 says that
“all” will be changed. Second, a partial rapture would logically demand a parallel
partial resurrection, which is nowhere taught in Scripture. Third, a partial rapture
would minimize and possibly eliminate the need for the judgment seat of Christ,
because judgment would have already taken place by virtue of a “partial” rapture.
Fourth, it creates a purgatory of sorts on earth for those believers left behind. Fifth,
a partial rapture is nowhere explicitly taught in Scripture. Therefore, it is concluded
that the rapture will be full and com plete, not just partial.
Will the “Rapture” Be Pre, Mid, or Post
in a Time Relationship to Daniel’s Seventieth Week?
The following seven evidences point to a pretribulational rapture. In this
244 The Master’s Seminary Journal
writer’s opinion, they create a far more compelling case than the reasoning given for
any other time of the rapture.
The Church Is Not Mentioned in Revelation 6–18 as Being on Earth
The common NT term for “church” (¦6680F\", ekklsia) is used nineteen
times in Revelation 1–3, a section that deals with the historical church of the first
century toward the end of the apostle John’s life (ca. A.D. 95). However, “church”
is then used only once more in the twenty-two chapter book and that at the very end
(22:16) when John returns to addressing the first-century church. Most interesting
is the fact that nowhere during the period of Daniel’s seventieth week is the term for
“church” used for believers on earth (cf. Rev. 4–19).
It is remarkable and totally unexpected that John would shift from detailed
instructions for the church to absolute silence about the church in the subsequent 13
chapters if, in fact, the church continued into the tribulation. If the church will
experience the tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week, then surely the most detailed
study of tribulation events would include an account of the church’s role. But it does
not! The only timing of the rapture that would account for this frequent mention of
“church” in Revelation 1–3 and total absence of the “church” on earth until
Revelation 22:16 is a pretribulational rapture which will relocate the church from
earth to heaven prior to Daniel’s seventieth week.
Looking at this observation from another perspective, it is also true that
nowhere in Scripture is it taught that the church and Israel would coexist as the
centers for God’s redemptive message and yet remain mutually exclusive.
Today, the church universal is God’s human channel of redemptive truth.
Revelation gives certain indications that the Jewish remnant will be God’s human
instrument during Daniel’s seventieth week. The unbiased reader would certainly
be impressed by the abrupt shift from the “church” in Revelation 2–3, to the 144,000
Jews from the twelve tribes in Revelation 7 and 14. He would certainly ask, “Why?”
Further, because Revelation 12 is a mini-synopsis of the entire tribulation
period and because the woman who gave birth to the male child (Rev 12:1-13) is
Israel, then logically and topically the Tribulation period focuses on the nation of
Israel and not the church. How could this be? Because a pretribulational rapture has
removed the “church” from the earth prior to Daniel’s seventieth week.
The Rapture Is Rendered Inconsequential if It Is Posttribulational
First, if God miraculously preserves the church through the tribulation, why
have a rapture? If it is to avoid the wrath of God at Armageddon, then why would
God not continue to protect the saints on earth (as is postulated by posttribulation-
ism) just as He protected Israel (see Exod 8:22; 9:4, 26; 10:23; 11:7) from H is wrath
poured out upon Pharaoh and Egypt. Further, if the purpose of the rapture is for
living saints to avoid Armageddon, why also resurrect the saints who are already
immune at the same time?
Second, if the rapture will take place in connection with the Lord’s
posttribulational coming, the subsequent separation of the sheep from the goats (see
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 245
Matt. 25:31ff.) will be redundant. Separation will have taken place in the very act
of translation.
Third, if all tribulation believers are raptured and glorified just prior to the
inauguration of the millennial Kingdom, who then will populate and propagate the
Kingdom? The Scriptures indicate that the living unbelievers will be judged at the
end of the tribulation and removed from the earth (see Matt 13:41-42; 25:41). Yet,
they also teach that children will be born to believers during the millennium and that
these children will be capable of sin (see Isa 65:20; Rev 20:7-10). This will not be
possible if all believers on earth have been glorified through a posttribulational
rapture.
Fourth, the posttribulational paradigm of the church being raptured and then
immediately brought back to earth leaves no time for the Bema, i.e., the Judgment
Seat of Christ to occur (1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10), nor for the Marriage Supper
(Rev 19:6-10). Thus, it can be concluded that a posttribulational time of the rapture
makes no logical sense, is incongruous with the sheep-goat nation judgment, and,
in fact, eliminates two critical end-time events. A pretribulational rapture avoids all
of these insurmountable difficulties.
The Epistles Contain No Preparatory Warnings of an Impending Tribulation
for Church-Age Believers
God’s instructions to the church through the epistles contain a variety of
warnings, but never do they warn believers to prepare for entering and enduring the
tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week.
They warn vigorously about coming error and false prophets (see Acts
20:29-30; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3; Jude 4). They warn against ungodly living (see
Eph 4:25–5:7; 1 Thess 4:3-8; Heb 12:1). They even admonish believers to endure
in the midst of present tribulation (see 1 Thess 2:13-14; 2 Thess 1:4; all of 1 Peter).
However, there is absolute silence on preparing the church for any kind of tribulation
like that found in Revelation 6–18.
It is incongruous, then, that the Scriptures would be silent about such a
traumatic change for the church. If any time of the rapture other than pretribulation-
al were true, one would expect the epistles to teach the fact of the church in the
tribulation, the purpose of the church in the tribulation, and the conduct of the church
in the tribulation. However, there is no teaching whatsoever. Only a pretribulational
rapture satisfactorily explains such obvious silence.
First Thess 4:13-18 Demands a Pretribulational Rapture
For discussion’s sake, suppose hypothetically that some other rapture
timing besides pretribulational is true. What would one expect to find in 1
Thessalonians 4? How does this compare with what is actually observed?
First, one w ould expect the Thessalonians to be joyous over the fact that
loved ones are home with the Lord and will not have to endure the horrors of the
tribulation. But the Thessalonians are actually grieving because they fear their loved
ones have missed the rapture. Only a pretribulational rapture accounts for this grief.
246 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Second, one would expect the Thessalonians to be grieving over their own
impending trial rather than grieving over loved ones. Furthermore, they would be
inquisitive about their own future doom. But the Thessalonians have no fears or
questions about the coming tribulation.
Third, one would expect Paul, even in the absence of interest or questions
by the Thessalonians, to have provided instructions and exhortation for such a
supreme test, which would make their present tribulation seem microscopic in
comparison. But not one indication of any impending tribulation of this kind
appears in the text.
First Thessalonians 4 fits only the model of a pretribulational rapture. It is
incompatible with any other time for the rapture.
John 14:1-3 Parallels 1 Thess 4:13-18
John 14:1-3 refers to Christ’s coming again. It is not a promise to all
believers that they shall go to Him at death. It does refer to the rapture of the church.
Note the close parallel between the promises of John 14:1-3 and 1 Thess 4:13-18.
First, the promise of a presence with Christ: “. . . that where I am, there you may be
also” (John 14:3) and “. . . thus we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thess 4:17).
Second, the promise of comfort: “Let not your heart be troubled . . .” (John 14:1)
and “Therefore comfort one another with these words” (1 Thess 4:18).
Jesus instructed the disciples that He was going to His Father’s house
(heaven) to prepare a place for them. He promised them that He would return and
receive them so that they could be with Him wherever He was.
The phrase “wherever I am,” while implying continued presence in general,
here means presence in heaven in particular. The Lord told the Pharisees in John
7:34, “Where I am you cannot come.” He was not talking about His then-present
abode on earth but rather His resurrected presence at the right hand of the Father.
In John 14:3 “where I am” must mean “in heaven” or the intent of 14:1-3 would be
wasted and worthless.
A posttribulational rapture demands that the saints meet Christ in the air
and immediately descend to earth without experiencing what the Lord promised in
John 14. Since John 14 refers to the rapture, only a pretribulational rapture satisfies
the language of John 14:1-3 and allows raptured saints to dwell for a meaningful
time with Christ in His Father’s house.
The Nature of Events at Christ’s Posttribulational Coming Differs from That
of the Rapture
If one compares what happens at the rapture in 1 Thess 4:13-18 and 1 Cor
15:50-58 with what happens in the final events of Christ’s second coming in
Matthew 24–25, at least eight significant contrasts or differences are observable.
These differences demand that the rapture occur at a time significantly different from
that of the final event of Christ’s second coming.
1. At the rapture, Christ comes in the air and returns to heaven (1 Thess 4:17),
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 247
but at the final event of the second coming, Christ comes to the earth to
dwell and reign (Matt 25:31-32).
2. At the rapture, Christ gathers His own (1 Thess 4:16-17), but at the final
event of the second coming, angels gather the elect (Matt 24:31).
3. At the rapture, Christ com es to reward (1 Thess 4:17), but at the final event
of the second coming, Christ comes to judge (M att 25:31-46).
4. At the rapture, resurrection is prominent (1 Thess 4:15-16), but at the final
event of the second coming, resurrection is not mentioned.
5. At the rapture, believers depart the earth (1 Thess 4:15-17), but at the final
event of the second coming, unbelievers are taken away from the earth
(Matt 24:37-41).
6. At the rapture, unbelievers remain on earth, but at the final event of the
second coming, believers remain on earth (Matt 25:34).
7. At the rapture, there is no mention of establishing Christ’s Kingdom on
earth, but at the final event of the second coming, Christ has come to set up
His Kingdom on earth (Matt 25:31, 34).
8. At the rapture, believers will receive glorified bodies (cf. 1 Cor 15:51-57),
but at the final event of the second coming, no one will receive glorified
bodies.
Additionally, several of Christ’s parables in Matthew 13 confirm
differences between the rapture and the final event of Christ’s second coming.
1. In the parable of the wheat and tares, the tares (unbelievers) are taken out
from among the wheat (believers) at the climax of the second coming (Matt
13:30, 40), but believers are removed from among unbelievers at the
rapture (1 Thess 4:15-17).
2. In the parable of the dragnet, the bad fish (unbelievers) are taken out from
among the good fish (believers) at the culmination of Christ’s second
coming (Matt 13:48-50), but believers are removed from among unbeliev-
ers at the rapture (1 Thess 4:15-17).
Finally, the rapture is unmentioned in either of the most detailed second-
coming texts—Matthew 24 and Revelation 19. This is to be expected in light of the
observations above, because the pretribulational rapture will have occurred seven
years earlier.
Rev 3:10 Promises That the Church Will Be Removed Prior to Daniel’s
Seventieth Week
The issue here is whether the phrase “keep you from the hour of testing”
means “a continuing safe state outside of” or “safe emergence from within.”
248 The Master’s Seminary Journal
The Meaning of z+6 (Ek)
The Greek preposition ek has the basic idea of emergence, but this is not
true in every context. Two notable exceptions to the basic idea are 2 Cor 1:10 and
1 Thess 1:10. In the Corinthian passage, Paul rehearses his rescue from death by
God. Now Paul did not emerge from a state of death but rather was rescued from
that potential danger.
Even more convincing is 1 Thessalonians 1:10. Here Paul states that Jesus
is rescuing believers out of the wrath to come. The idea is not emergence out of
wrath, but rather protection from entrance into wrath.
Therefore, ek can be understood to mean either “a continuing state outside
of” or “emergence from within.” Thus no rapture position can be dogmatic at this
point. At best, all positions remain possible.
The Meaning of I0DXTz+6 (TreÇ Ek)
It has been argued that if John had meant “to keep from,” he would have
used J0DXT B` (treÇ apo, cf. James 1:27). But it is more than equally true that
if John had meant “protection within,” he would have used treÇ with ¦< (en), ,ÆH
(eis), or *4V (dia). The greater burden of proof lies w ith the mid- and post-
tribulational positions since their solution of immunity within does not explain the
use of ek.
First, ek is much closer to apo in meaning than it is to en, eis, or dia. The
two frequently overlap, and in modern Greek apo is absorbing ek. When combined
with treÇ, ek much more closely approximates apo than it does en, eis or dia.
Second, the phrase treÇ en is used three times in the NT (see Acts 12:5;
1 Pet 1:4; Jude 21). In each instance, it implies previous existence within with a
view to continuation within. Now, if treÇ en means continued existence within,
what does treÇ ek mean? Since they are anything but synonymous, it quite
logically means to maintain an existence outside.
TreÇ Ek in John 17:15
John 17:15 is the only other passage in the NT where treÇ ek occurs. This
word combination does not occur in the Septuagint. It is assumed that whatever the
phrase means here, it also means the same in Rev 3:10.
If treÇ ek means “previous existence within,” it contradicts 1 John 5:19
which states that believers are of God and unbelievers are in the evil one. Now if
1 John 5:19 implies that believers are not in the power of the evil one, John 17:15
could not possibly imply that they are in the power of Satan and needing protection.
John 17:15 records the Lord’s petition to keep them outside of the evil one.
Since John 17:15 means to keep outside of the evil one, the parallel thought
in Rev 3:10 is to keep the church outside of the hour of testing. Therefore, only a
pretribulational rapture would fulfill the promise.
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 249
The Martyrs in Rev 6:9-11 and 7:14
If Rev 3:10 means imm unity or protection within as other positions insist,
several contradictions result. First, if protection in Rev 3:10 is limited to protection
from God’s wrath only and not Satan’s wrath also, then Rev 3:10 denies the Lord’s
request in John 17:15.
Second, if it is argued that Rev 3:10 means total immunity, then of what
worth is the promise in light of Rev 6:9-11 and 7:14 where martyrs abound? The
wholesale martyrdom of saints during the tribulation demands that the promise to the
Philadelphian church be interpreted as “keeping out of” the hour of testing, not
“keeping within.”
Summary
1. Ek can mean “emergence from within,” or it can mean “a continued state
outside.”
2. TreÇ en is used in Acts 12:5, 1 Pet 1:4, and Jude 21, and implies “previous
and continued existence within.” Therefore treÇ ek logically must be
understood as “continued existence outside.”
3. If the immunity of saints to wrath through the tribulation was intended to
teach a posttribulational rapture, then John would have used treÇ en, eis,
or dia in Rev 3:10.
4. Consistent with the previous observation, treÇ ek meaning “to keep
within” in John 17:15 would contradict 1 John 5:19 if, in fact, it implied
“previous existence within.”
5. If treÇ ek in Rev 3:10 implies “previous existence within,” it contradicts
the prayer in John 17:15 in limiting immunity to God’s wrath. Or its
alleged promise of total immunity is rendered null and void by the
slaughter of saints in Rev 6:9-11 and 7:14.
6. Only the interpretation of treÇ ek in Rev 3:10 which understands that the
Philadelphian church will not enter the tribulation, that is, they will be kept
out or guarded from entering, satisfies a consistent exegesis of the phrase.
This finding is in perfect harmony only with a pretribulational understand-
ing of the rapture.
Answers to Difficult Questions
1. Since the phrase “to meet the Lord” in 1 Thess 4:17 (B"<JVT [apantaÇ]
and BV<J0F4H [apantsis]) can refer to a friendly city going out to meet
the visiting king and escorting him back to the city, does not this phrase
point decidedly to a posttribulational rapture?
First, this Greek verb/noun can refer to either meeting within a city (Mark 14:13;
Luke 17:12) or going out of the city to meet and return back (Matt 25:6; Acts
250 The Master’s Seminary Journal
28:15). So the use of this particular word is not at all decisive. Second,
remember that Christ is coming to a hostile people in general who will
eventually fight against him at Armageddon. So, the pretribulational rapture best
pictures the king rescuing, by a rapture, His faithful followers who are trapped
in a hostile world and who will later accompany Him when He returns to
conquer His enemies and set up His Kingdom (cf. Rev 19:11-16).
2. Why does Paul write in 1 Thess 5:6 for believers to be alert to “the day of
the Lord” if according to pretribulationism they would not be in it?
Paul exhorts believers in 1 Thess 5:6 to be alert and living godly in a DOL
context just as Peter does in 2 Pet 3:14-15 where the DOL experience is clearly
at the end of the millennium when the old heavens and earth will be destroyed
and replaced with the new. In both cases, they are exhortations to present godly
living for true believers in the light of God’s future judgment on unbelievers.
These texts really are not determining factors for any positions on the time of the
rapture.
3. Does not Matt 24:37-42, where people are taken out of the world, teach a
posttribulational rapture?
In fact, Matt 24:37-42 teaches just the opposite. First, the historical illustration
of Noah (vv. 37-39) teaches that Noah and his family were left alive while the
whole world was taken away in death and judgment. This is exactly the
sequence to be expected at Christ’s second coming as taught in the parable of the
wheat and tares (Matt 13:24-43), the parable of the dragnet (Matt 13:47-50), and
the sheep-goat nation judgment (M att 25:31-46). In all of these cases, at the
final event in Christ’s second coming, unbelievers are taken away in judgment
and righteous believers remain. No, this passage does not teach about the
rapture.
4. Does not a pretribulational rapture result in two second comings of Christ
while Scripture teaches only one second coming?
Not at all. No matter what rapture position one holds, Christ’s second coming
is one event which occurs in two parts—Christ coming in the air to rapture the
church and Christ coming to earth to conquer, judge, and set up His kingdom.
5. When Jeremiah writes (30:7), “And it is the time of Jacob’s distress, but
he will be saved from it,” is this not the same kind of language used in Rev
3:10 (kept from) and would not Rev 3:10 then point to a posttribulational
rapture?
The Septuagint (37:7, LXX reference) translates the Hebrew text of Jeremiah
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 251
(30:7, Hebrew and English reference) with the verb and preposition combination
Ff.T B` (sÇzÇ apo) in regard to Israel. They will actually be saved through
the judgment and emerge out of it as the people of God over whom Christ will
reign as promised to David (2 Sam 7:8-17) and prophesied by Ezekiel (37:11-
28). Because sÇzÇ apo means “protected in the midst of,” this has no bearing on
the meaning of a different verb and preposition used in Rev 3:10 (treÇ ek). See
the earlier discussion on the actual verb/preposition combination in Rev 3:10.
Finally, there is no necessary equation of the outcome to Israel and God’s plan
for the church.
6. If pretribulationism is true, why is there no mention of the “church” in
heaven in Revelation 4–19?
It is true that the word for “church” (¦6680F\", ekklsia) is not used of the
church in heaven in Revelation 4–19. However, that does not mean the church
is invisible. There are at least two distinct appearances of the church in heaven.
First, the twenty-four elders in Revelation 4–5 symbolize the church. Second,
the phrase “you saints and apostles and prophets” in Rev 18:20 refers clearly to
the church in heaven. So, what rapture scenario best accounts for the church
being in heaven in these texts at this time? A pretribulational rapture.
7. Why is Revelation addressed to the church, if the church will not experi-
ence the tribulation of Revelation 6–19 due to a pretribulational rapture?
God frequently warned Israel in the OT of impending judgment, even though the
generation who received the prophecy would not experience it. As mentioned
in the previous answer to Question 2, both Paul (1 Thess 5:6) and Peter (2 Pet
3:14-15) used a future judgm ent, which the people to whom they wrote would
not experience, to exhort God’s people to present godly living. The exact same
pattern was followed by John in Revelation. The church was alerted to God’s
future judgment of sin on earth as a basis for the church to teach pure doctrine
and live holy lives (Revelation 2–3).
8. If the Day of the Lord occurs at the end of Daniel’s seventieth week, does
not the chronological sequence of 1 Thessalonian 4 and 1 Thessalonian 5
teach a postribulational rapture?
First, regardless of whether the DOL begins at the beginning or the end of
Daniel’s seventieth week, this point does not necessarily determine the time of
the rapture. Second, the grammar of 1 Thess 5:1 argues against a close
chronological sequence with 1 Thess 4:13-18 by the use of B,DÂ *X (peri de, 18
times in the NT). In all but four cases an obvious change in time or topic is
implied (see Matt 22:31; 24:36; Mark 12:26; 13:32). This prepositional phrase
is used by Paul eight times. Every other Pauline use indicates a change in topic.
Therefore, it is expected that Paul’s use of peri de in 1 Thess 5:1 also indicates
252 The Master’s Seminary Journal
a change in topic and time. This is consistent with his earlier use of peri de in
this epistle (cf. 4:9).
In 1 Thess 4:13-18, Paul has answered the question concerning the
experience of dead loved ones when the rapture comes. But in 5:1 and the
following verses, Paul shifts to the day of the Lord and the subsequent judgment
upon unbelievers. This is a totally different topic than the rapture and an event
that will occur at a different time than the rapture. If 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 is to be
taken as one unit of thought, as some have suggested, then Paul’s use of peri de
means nothing. However, if peri de is to be explained, it is best interpreted as
a major shift in thought within the broad topic of eschatology; only a
pretribulational rapture would account for this.
9. Is there any relationship between the rapture trumpet of 1 Thess 4:17/1
Cor 15:52 and the trumpet of Joel 2:1, or the trumpet of Matthew 24:31,
or the trumpet of Revelation 11:15? If so, does this not contradict a
pretribulational rapture?
A careful study of the almost one hundred uses of “trumpet/trumpets” in the OT
will quickly advise the student of Scripture not to equate the trumpets in any two
texts hastily, without a great deal of corroborating contextual evidence. For
example, there is the trumpet used for warning (Jer 6:1), the trumpet used for
worship/praise (2 Chr 20:28; Pss 81:3; 150:3; Isa 27:3), the trumpet used for
victory (1 Sam 13:3), the trumpet used for recall (2 Sam 2:28; 18:16), the
trumpet used for rejoicing (2 Sam 6:15), the trumpet used for announcements (2
Sam 20:1; 1 Kgs 1:34; 2 Kgs 9:13), and the trumpet for dispersement (2 Sam
20:22) to name a few.
After looking at the texts in question, it appears that each trumpet is used
for a purpose that is unique and different from the other three. The trumpet of
Joel 2:1 is a trumpet of warning that the DOL is near (cf. Jer 6:1). The trumpet
of 1 Thess 4:17/1 Cor 15:52 is a trumpet which announces the approaching king
(cf. Ps 47:5) so that people may go out to greet Him. The trumpet of M att 24:31
is a trumpet call to assembly (cf. Exod 19:16; Neh 4:20; Joel 2:15). The trumpet
of Rev 11:15 is the seventh in a series of seven and is a trumpet that announces
victory (cf. 1 Sam 13:3). There is no compelling reason to equate the rapture
trumpet with any of these other three trumpets. Therefore, these texts cannot be
used to determine the time of the rapture.
10. Does not the promise of deliverance for church saints in 2 Thess 1:6-10, at
the time when Jesus returns with His angels to judge the world, point to a later
rapture time than pretribulational?
Paul is not writing a detailed, chronological, or even precise prophetic treatise
here, but rather is wanting to give the Thessalonians hope that, in the end, God’s
righteousness will prevail. Like OT prophets (cf. Isa 61:1-2; 2 Pet 1:10-11) Paul
has compressed the details so that the range of time is not apparent, nor are all
Why a Pretribulational Rapture? 253
of the details. The apostle is plainly assuring the Thessalonians that there will
certainly be a coming day of retribution for their persecutors. This text really
has no bearing on determining the time of the rapture.
11. Does not Rev 14:14 teach a midtribulational rapture?
While the language certainly refers to Christ, the context is of judgment, similar
to Rev 19:11-16. The context of the rapture is one of blessing for the saints.
Earlier in this article, eight major differences/contrasts between the rapture and
the last event of Christ’s second coming were discussed. No, Revelation 14:14
does not refer to a midtribulational rapture.
12. Is not a midtribulational view actually a pretribulational view since the
“great tribulation” (Matt 24:21; Rev 7:14) does not begin until the middle
of Daniel’s seventieth week?
To say that real “tribulation” does not begin until the midpoint of Daniel’s
seventieth week is to make an arbitrary delineation, not to mention contradicting
the testimony of at least the first four seals of Rev 6:1-8, which picture the
tribulation on earth that will be triggered by Christ from heaven. These seals are
described as “birthpangs” and “tribulation” in Matt 24:8-9. Though the ultimate
intensity of tribulation will come in the final half of Daniel’s seventieth week,
the entire period is marked by tribulation. Thus, the only true pretribulational
position is the one that places the rapture prior to Daniel’s seventieth week.
13. If the church partakes of the first resurrection and if the first resurrection
is described in Revelation 20:4, does this not point to a posttribulational
resurrection/rapture?
The use of the phrase “first resurrection” in Rev 20:5-6 refers specifically to the
posttribulational resurrection of those who will believe in Christ during Daniel’s
seventieth week, as made clear by the language of Rev 20:4. However, nothing
in this phrase limits the “first resurrection” only to this group of people or to this
time. The “first resurrection,” which is contrasted with the “second death” (Rev
20:6, 14; 21:8)—i.e., the resurrection of all unbelievers—is made up of several
additional categories of people who will be resurrected at various times. These
include: (1) Christ the first fruits (1 Cor 15:23), (2) church saints (1 Cor 15:23,
50-58) at the rapture, and (3) OT saints (Ezek 37:12-14; Dan 12:2) at the end of
Daniel’s seventieth week. Therefore, this text does not point to a posttribulation-
al resurrection/rapture.
255
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 255-263
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS
ON PRETRIBULATIONISM
Compiled by Dennis M. Swanson
Seminary Librarian
The subjects of eschatology in general and various positions on the rapture
in particular have generated an enormous body of literature in the last century. This
bibliography represents the collected research of contributors to this issue of TMSJ
as well as additional sources not cited in the articles. To affirm pretribulationism,
a response to points raised by other positions is necessary. As a general rule,
writings related to the return of Christ to the earth and the millennium have not been
included unless they deal with the timing of the rapture also. This bibliography is
not exhaustive, but rather suggestive for those wishing to do additional study.
The bibliography’s six major categories are (1) General and Introductory
Works, (2) Biblical Commentaries, (3) Works on Posttribulationalism, (4) Works on
Midtribulationalism, (5) Works on Pre-Wrath Rapturism, and (6) Works on
Pretribulationalism. Each section contains monographs, multi-author works, journal
articles, and unpublished material, all listed by author.
General and Introductory Works
Abrahamse, Dorothy deF. “Introduction,” in The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition,
Paul J. Alexander. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, 1985.
Alexander, Paul J. “The Diffusion of Byzantine Apocalypses in the Medieval West
and the Beginnings of Joachimism,” in Prophecy and Millenarianism: Essays
in Honour of Marjorie Reeves. Edited by Ann Williams. Essex: Longman,
1980. 58-95.
Balthasar Hubmaier. “Apologia,” Balthasar Hubmaier, Theologian of Anabaptism.
Translated and edited by H. Wayne Pipkin and John H. Yoder. Scottdale, Pa.:
Herald, 1989.
Beker, J. Christiaan. Paul’s Apocalyptic Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Benware, Paul N. Understanding End Times Prophecy. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
Bernard, Thomas Dehany. The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament, Eight
Lectures delivered before the University of Oxford on The Bampton Foundation,
1864. New York: American Tract Society, 1891.
Clark, K. W. “Realized Eschatology,” JBL 59 (September 1940): 367-83.
Clouse, Robert G. “Millennialism in the Seventeenth Century.” Grace Journal 6
256 The Master’s Seminary Journal
(1965):3-15.
__________. “Rapture of the Church,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.
Coad, F. Roy. A History of the Brethren Movement. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic, 1968.
Cohn, Norman. The Pursuit of the Millennium. London: Secker and Warburg,
1957.
Cotterell, Peter, and M ax Turner. Linguistics & Biblical Interpretation. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1989.
Couch, Mal., ed. A Bible Handbook to Revelation. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001.
__________. Dictionary of Premillennial Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996.
Crutchfield, Larry V. The Origins of Dispensationalism: The Darby Factor.
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1992,
Dake, Finis Jennings. The Rapture and The Second Coming of Christ. Lawrence-
ville, Ga.: Dake Bible Sales, 1977.
Douglas, J. D., ed. The New Dictionary of the Christian Church. Rev. ed. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
English, E. Schuyler. Re-Thinking the Rapture. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers,
1954.
Froom, LeRoy Edwin. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical
Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 4 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald, 1950.
Fuller, Reginald H. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament. London: Gerald
Duckworth, 1966.
Garrett, James Leo. Systematic Theology, Biblical, Historical, and Evangelical. 2
vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990, 1995.
Gerstner, John H. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of
Dispensationalism. Brentwood, Tenn.: Wolgemuth and Hyatt Publishers, 1991.
Hannah, John. Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine. Colorado Springs,
Colo.: NavPress, 2001.
Hauser, Charles August, Jr. “The Eschatology of the Early Church Fathers.”
Unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary. Winona Lake,
Ind., 1961.
Hodges, Zane C. “The First Horseman of the Apocalypse,” BSac 119 (1962): 324-
34.
Hoyt, Herman A. The End Times. Chicago: Moody, 1969.
Ice, Thomas, and Timothy Demy, eds. When the Trumpet Sounds. Eugene, Ore.:
Harvest House, 1995.
__________, and Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. The Great Tribulation, Past or Future?
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
Kelly, William. “The Rapture of the Saints: Who Suggested It, or Rather in What
Scripture?” The Bible Treasury 4(ns) (1903):314-18.
LaHaye, Tim, and Thomas Ice. Charting the End Times. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House, 2001.
Lewis, Charlton T., and Charles Short. A New Latin Dictionary. New York:
Bibliography 257
American Book Company, 1907.
MacArthur, John. The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the
Age. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1999.
Marxen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by G. Buswell.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.
McClain, Alva J. Christian Theology: Biblical Eschatology. Revised by John C.
Whitcomb, Jr. Unpublished class notes. Grace Theological Seminary, Winona
Lake, Ind., n.d.
__________. Christian Theology: The Kingdom and the Church. Revised by John
C. Whitcomb, Jr. Unpublished class notes. Grace Theological Seminary,
Winona Lake, Ind., n.d.
McCune, Rolland Dale. “An Investigation and Criticism of ‘Historic’ Premillennial-
ism from the Viewpoint of Dispensationalism.” Unpublished Th.D. dissertation.
Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Ind., 1972.
McLean, John. “Chronology and Sequential Structure of John’s Revelation,” in
When the Trumpet Sounds, eds. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene, Ore.:
Harvest House, 1995.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. Interpreting the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1992.
Miller, J. Graham. Calvin’s Wisdom, An Anthology Arranged Alphabetically by a
Grateful Reader. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1992.
Moore, A. L. The Parousia in the New Testament. Supplements to Novum
Testamentum Volume XIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966.
Oberman, Heiko A. The Dawn of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Pate, C. Marvin, ed. Four Views on the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1998.
Perrin, Norman, The New Testament, An Introduction. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974.
Pink, Arthur W. The Redeemer’s Return. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, 1918.
Reese, Alexander. The Approaching Advent of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan
and Scott, 1937, and Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications,
1975.
Reeves, Marjorie. The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages. Oxford:
The Clarendon Press, 1969.
Reiter, Richard R., ed. The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1986.
__________. What You Should Know About the Rapture. Chicago: Moody, 1981.
Showers, Renald E. Maranatha, Our Lord Come! Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel,
1995.
__________. There Really is a Difference; A Comparison of Covenant and
258 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Dispensational Theology. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel, 1990.
Stallard, Mike. “Review of The Last Days According to Jesus by R. C. Sproul.”
The Conservative Theological Journal 6 (March 2002):45-71.
Stenton, F. M. Anglo-Saxon England. Oxford: Oxford University, 1947.
Svigel, Michael J. “The Apocalypse of John and the Rapture of the Church: A
Reevaluation.” Trinity Journal 22ns (2001):23-74.
Tenney, Merrill C. Interpreting Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Teulon, J. S. The History and Teaching of the Plymouth Brethern. London:
S.P.C.K., 1899.
Thomas, Robert L. “The Place of Imminence in Recent Eschatological Systems,” in
Looking into the Future: Evangelical Studies in Eschatology. Edited by David
W. Baker. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001. 199-216.
Turner, David L., “The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction
with Evangelical Treatments.” Grace Theological Journal 10/1 (1989):3-27.
Walvoord, John F. The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1976.
__________. The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990.
__________. The Rapture Question. Grand Rapids: Dunham, 1957.
Weber, Timothy P. Living in the Shadow of the Second Coming. New York: Oxford
University, 1979.
Williams, George H. Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers. Library of Christian
Classics. London: SCM, 1957.
Willis, Wesley R., and John R Master, eds. Issues in Dispensationalism. Chicago:
Moody, 1994.
Wood, Leon. Is the Rapture Next? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956.
Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament; An Introduction to the Biblia
Hebraica. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Witherington, Ben, III. “Transcending Imminence: The Gordian Knot of Pauline
Eschatology,” in Eschatology in the Bible & Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 1997.
Biblical Commentaries
Aune, David E. Revelation 1-5. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1997.
________. Revelation 6-16. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville: Nelson, 1998.
________. Revelation 17-22. Word Biblical Commentary. Nashville, Nelson,
1998.
Beale, G. K. The Book of Revelation. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Best, Ernest. A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians.
HNTC. New York: Harper and Row, 1973.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. NAC, vol. 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Bock, Darrell L., Luke, Volume 2: 9:51–24:53. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996.
Brown, Raymond E., The Gospel according to John [xiii–xxi]. The Anchor Bible.
Bibliography 259
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1970.
Bruce, F. F. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1982.
Carson, D. A., “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol 8. Edited by
Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison, Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 3. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1997.
Fee, Gordon D., The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Edited by Gordon D.
Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Frame, James Everett, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. ICC.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.
Gill, John. Exposition of the New Testament. 2 vols. London: William Hill
Collingridge, 1853.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church
under Persecution. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Hagner, Donald A., Matthew 14–28. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word,
1995.
Hiebert, D. Edmond, 1 & 2 Thessalonians. Rev. ed. Chicago: Moody, 1992.
Johnson, Alan F. “Revelation.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary , vol. 12. Edited
by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Ladd, George Eldon. A Commentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1972.
Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 1957.
Malherbe, Abraham J. The Letters to the Thessalonians. The Anchor Bible. New
York: Doubleday, 2000.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Martin, D. Michael. 1, 2 Thesalonians. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
1995.
Mayhue, Richard L. First and Second Thessalonians. Focus on the Bible. Fearn,
Scotland: Christian Focus Publishers, 1999.
Mounce, Robert A. The Book of Revelation. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977, 1998.
Morris, Leon. The Revelation of St. John. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Smith, J. B. A Revelation of Jesus Christ. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1961.
Stein, Robert H. Luke. NAC, vol 24. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Thomas, Robert, “1 & 2 Thessalonians.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary , vol.
11. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
__________. Revelation 1–7. Chicago: Moody, 1992.
__________. Revelation 8–22. Chicago: Moody, 1995.
Walvoord, John F. The Revelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody, 1966.
Wanamaker, Charles A. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the
Greek Text. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
260 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Works on Posttribulationism
Edgar, Thomas R. “Robert H. Gundry and Revelation 3:10.” Grace Theological
Journal 3 (1982):19-49.
Erickson, Millard J. A Basic Guide to Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Gundry, Robert H. The Church and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1973.
__________. First the Antichrist. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.
Ladd, George Eldon, The Blessed Hope. Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1956.
McAvory, Steve. “Posttribulationism’s Appeal to Antiquity.” A Paper Presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Pre-Trib Research Group, Arlington, Texas, 2001.
Moo, Douglas J. “The Case for the Posttribulation Rapture Position,” in The
Rapture: Pre-, M id-, or Post-Tribulational. Edited by Richard Reiter. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. 169-212.
Northrup, Bernard E. “The Posttribulational Rapture Error.,” The Baptist Bulletin
(June 1976):12-14.
Sproule, John A. A Revised Review of “The Church and the Tribulation,” by
Robert H. Gundry. Birmingham, Ala.: Southeastern Bible College, 1974.
Walvoord, John F. “Is a Posttribulational Rapture Revealed in Matthew 24?” Grace
Theological Journal 6/2 (Fall 1985):257-66.
Works on Midtribulationism
Archer, Gleason A. “The Case for the Midtribulation Rapture Position,” in The
Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Edited by Richard Reiter. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. 113-46.
Works on Pre-Wrath Rapturism
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Is There a Pre-wrath Rapture?” in When the Trumpet
Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House, 1995. 381-412
Karleen, Paul S., The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: Is It Biblical? Langhorne,
Pa.: BF Press, 1991.
Rosenthal, Marvin. The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Nashville: Nelson,
1990.
Showers, Renald. The Pre-Wrath Rapture View: An Examination and Critique.
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001.
Van Kampen, Robert D. The Sign. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1992.
__________. The Rapture Question Answered. Grand Rapids: Fleming H. Revell,
1997.
__________. The Pre-Wrath Rapture Position Explained. Grandhaven, Mich.: Sola
Scriptura, 1999.
Bibliography 261
Works on Pre-Tribulationism
Beechick, Allen. The Pretribulation Rapture. Denver, Colo.: Accent Books, 1980.
Bell, William E. “A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in
Christian Eschatology.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. New York University,
1967.
Bray, John L. Morgan Edwards and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching (1788).
Lakeland, Fla.: John L. Bray Ministry, 1995.
__________. The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching. Lakeland, Fla.:
John L Bray Ministry, 1982.
__________. The Second Coming of Christ and Related Events. Lakeland, Fla.:
John L. Bray Ministry, 1985.
Brindle, Wayne A. “Biblical Evidence for the Imminence of the Rapture.” BSac
158 (April-June 2001):138-51.
Bruce, F. F. “Review of The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin by Dave M acPherson.”
Evangelical Quarterly 47 (1975):58.
Crutchfield, Larry V. “The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation in the Apostolic
Fathers,” in When the Trumpet Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy
Demy. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1995. 85-104.
Culver, Robert D. “A Neglected Millennial Passage from Saint Paul.” Edited by
John F. Walvoord. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the
Evangelical Theological Society, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1955.
Feinberg, John S. “Arguing for the Rapture: Who Must Prove What and How?” in
When the Trumpet Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene,
Ore.: Harvest House, 1995. 187-210.
Feinberg, Paul D. “The Case for the Pretribulation Rapture Position,” in The
Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Edited by Richard Reiter. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. 45-86.
Gumerlock, Francis. “A Rapture Citation in the Fourteenth Century.” BSac 159
(July-Sept 2002):349-62.
Ice, Thomas. “The Biblical Basis for the Pretribulational Rapture,” in Basic
Theology Applied: A Practical Application of Basic Theology in Honor of
Charles C. Ryrie and His Work. Edited by Wesley and Elaine Willis, John and
Janet Master. Wheaton: Victor, 1995. 265-72.
__________. “Did J. N. Darby Believe in the Pretrib Rapture by 1827?”
Dispensational Distinctives 1 (1991):1-2.
__________. “Examining an Ancient Pre-Trib Rapture Statement,” in The Thomas
Ice Collection. The Pre-Trib Perspectives Journal (online). http://www.
raptureme.com/featured/tt14.html, (n.d.).
262 The Master’s Seminary Journal
__________. “Morgan Edward: Another Pre-Darby Rapturist,” in The Thomas Ice
Collection. The Pre-Trib Perspectives Journal. http://www.raptureme.com
/featured/tt3.html, (n.d.).
__________. “The Origin of the Pretrib Rapture.” Part 1. Biblical Perspectives, II.
(1989):1-6.
__________. “Why the Doctrine of the Pretribulational Rapture Did Not Begin with
Margaret Macdonald.” BSac 147 (April-June 1990):155-68.
__________, and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. The Great Tribulation Past or Future?
Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
__________, and Timothy Demy. Fast Facts on Bible Prophecy. Eugene, Ore.:
Harvest House, 1977.
__________, and Timothy Demy, eds. The Return: Understanding Christ’s Second
Coming and the End Times. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999.
Jeffrey, Grant R. “A Pretrib Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” in
When the Trumpet Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene,
Ore.: Harvest House, 1995. 105-27.
Lewis, Gordon. “Biblical Evidence for Pretribulationalism.” BSac 125 (July-
September 1968):216-26.
__________. “Theological Antecedents of Pretribulationalism.” BSac 125 (April-
June 1968):129-38.
Lindsey, Hal, and C. C. Carlson. The Late Great Planet Earth. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1970.
MacPherson, Dave. The Unbelievable Pre-Trib O rigin. Kansas City, Mo.: Heart
of America Bible Society, 1973.
__________. The Incredible Cover-Up. Plainfield, N.J.: Logos International, 1975.
__________. The Rapture Plot. Simpsonville, S.C.: Millennium III Publishers,
1995.
__________. The Three R’s: Rapture, Revisionism, Robbery. Simpsonville, S.C.:
POST, 1998.
Marotta, Frank. “Dave MacPherson’s The Rapture Plot: weighed and found
wanting.” The PreTrib Research Center. http://www.according2prophecy.org
/macphers.html, (n.d.).
Mayhue, Richard L. Snatched before the Storm! Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books,
1980.
Nelson, Neil D., Jr. “‘This Generation’ in Matt. 24:34: A Literary Critical
Perspective.” JETS 38/3 (Sept 1996):369-85.
No, John. Beyond the End Times. Bradford, Pa.: International Preterist Associa-
tion, 1999.
__________. Shattering the “Left Behind” Delusion. Bradford, Pa.: International
Preterist Association, 2000.
North, Gary. Rapture Fever. Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993.
Payne, J. Barton. The Imminent Appearance of Christ. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1962.
Bibliography 263
Pond, Eugene W. “The Background and Timing of the Judgment of the Sheep and
Goats.” BSac 159 (April-June 2002):201-20.
__________. “Who Are the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46?” BSac 159
(July-September 2002):288-301.
__________. “Who Are ‘the Least of My Brethren’?” BSac 159 (forthcoming Oct-
Dec 2002).
Scofield, C. I. Addresses on Prophecy. New York: A. C. Gaebelein, 1902.
Showers, Renald. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel,
1995.
Smith, Charles R. “A Review of The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin by Dave
MacPherson.” Spire (May-June 1974):8-10.
Sproule, John A. In Defense of Pretribulationalism. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH
Books, 1980.
Stanton, Gerald B. Kept From the Hour: Biblical Evidence for the Pretribulational
Return of Christ. 4th ed.. Miami Springs, Fla: Schoettle Publishing, 1991.
__________. “The Doctrine of Imminency: Is It Biblical?,” in When the Trumpet
Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest
House, 1995.
Thomas, Robert L. “The ‘Comings’ of Christ in Revelation 2–3.” The Master’s
Seminary Journal 7/2 (Fall 1996):153-81.
Toussaint, Stanley D. “Are the Church and the Rapture in Matthew 24?,” in The
Return. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2001. 121-36.
Townsend, Jeffrey L. “The Rapture in Revelation 3:10,” in When the Trumpet
Sounds. Edited by Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene, Ore: Harvest
House, 1995. 367-80.
Walvoord, John. The Blessed Hope and the Tribulation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1976.
Ware, Bruce A.“Is the Church in View in Matthew 24–25?” BSac 138 (April-June
1981):158-72.
Winfrey, David G. “The Great Tribulation: Kept ‘Out of’ or ‘Through.’” Grace
Theological Journal 3 (1982):3-18.
265
TMSJ 13/2 (Fall 2002) 265-300
BOOK REVIEWS
Ronald B. Allen. The Majesty of Man: The Dignity of Being Human. Revised and
expanded. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2000. 217 pp. $12.99 [paper]. Reviewed
by Trevor Craigen, Associate Professor of Theology.
The first edition of this book appeared in 1984 from Multnomah Press as
part of its “Critical Concerns” series. Calling it a revised and expanded edition is
certainly inaccurate since it is very difficult to find any noticeable change or upgrade
or revision. All chapter headings and sub-headings remain the same as before except
for two which were dropped, but with their content just becoming part of the material
under the previous subheading. With more than a random check being done, it
became increasingly obvious that the content of the book as a whole remains
unchanged—the first edition was reviewed by this reviewer [Grace Theological
Journal 7/1 (1986):135-36] and was practically read again, this time parallel with
the second edition.
With a good turn of phrase, a pleasant style of writing, liberal use of
anecdotes and illustrations, Allen does hold the reader’s attention, evoking murmurs
of agreement with his observations and conclusions, and sometimes a rueful shake
of the head or a questioning moue. Strikingly obvious was the fact that the questions
asked about and the descriptions given of the contemporary world remain the same
for both editions.
One realizes fairly soon after reading the book that it probably would not
be read a second time since it is neither a study book, nor a commentary on selected
passages of Scripture, nor a detailed presentation on the doctrine of man, nor a
focused treatment of moral and ethical dilemmas, nor an in-depth analysis of
worldly, ungodly, and secular-humanist elements and ideals harmful to present-day
churches and Christian schools. Nor is it a discourse on what the author refers to as
‘biblical humanism.’ However, a blending of snatches of all of these makes it a
primer on thinking about the badness of man and the goodness he can still show
morally, culturally, and socially. The biblical emphasis and evidence on man’s
depravity is clearly acknowledged and is not lessened or redefined by pointing to the
good humanity can do and has done. Never does Allen suggest that this element of
good could possibly win God’s favor. The portrayal of man as a noble savage well
underscores why the question “What is man?” validly resurfaces in every generation.
Years have come and gone yet the question still begs a philosophical and, even more
so, a biblical response. That is what Allen begins to deal with. As a primer, then,
266 The Master’s Seminary Journal
it does pique the reader’s interest to pursue some issues in more depth.
The wide variety of anecdotes also provides the reader with interesting
“trivial-pursuit” type tid-bits of information at which he might remark, “Hey! I
didn’t know that!” For example, the designer of San Francisco’s Golden Gate
Bridge intended it to glorify the Lord (69). Further, insight into where the author
stands on different issues surfaces here and there in a comment or two, e.g., he
obviously does not endorse today’s unfortunate emphasis on self-esteem (88), but
he does appear unfortunately to endorse progressive creationism (38). However, he
does commend a positive attitude toward science (163). On the other hand, he
evaluates ‘scientific creationism’ as being oxymoronic because one cannot teach
creation without giving attention to the Creator (37). He also delivers a caution
against prematurely settling the issue of Bible and science (38). Agreed, in part; but
the theologian must assert that scientific theories on origins just cannot be allowed
to override the straightforward presentation of creation in the biblical text as though
somehow the scientific theory and its extrapolation backwards could hermeneutically
inform and stretch that text.
Evangelicals are correctly cautioned from responding unwisely to things
going on in the world around them—circumstances and actions to which they have
a valid right to respond. Lack of having all the facts before reporting and upbraiding
something constitutes lack of wisdom (cf. 39-42). This aspect of wisdom the author
returns to later in the book with propositions that tantalize the reader to reflect
thereupon, e.g., “We were created by God to be wise” (139), or “Let us be truly
human in God’s wisdom” (152). Other observations are just as thought-provoking,
demanding some reaction from the reader, e.g., “It is precisely because of the high
value that Yahweh places in man—who, though fallen, still bears his image—that
God himself became man in Christ” (97). Or “When a person comes to a saving
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ, he not only has life forever, but is now more
man than ever” (101). Or in the book’s final paragraph, “Let us therefore luxuriate
in our humanity” (180), and in closure, “Only then will we be able to praise God for
the majesty that man is” (180). Keep in mind when responding that Allen had
previously well underscored both the creatureliness and fallenness of man and had
also rhetorically asked, “Does our doctrine of the fallenness of man mean that we are
not to be concerned with the ailing and the hurting of the world?” (157). He had also
remarked, “The marvel of being man is that man may give praise to God” (179).
One could wish for Colossians 3:1-5 and Mark 8:34-38 to have been included to
enhance discussion on man being of heavenly use in his world and to stress the need
for man to say goodbye to self as part of his self-awareness as one who follows
Christ Jesus the Lord. But choice of texts on which to base his thoughts belongs to
the author and could always be amended and extended by another.
Despite remarking that it would probably not be read a second time, it is
possible that one may refer back to this book not necessarily for doctrinal comment
and definition but in order to extract certain stories and illustrations as color for his
own sermons.
Book Reviews 267
Randall Balmer. Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/
John Knox, 2002. viii + 654 pp. $27.95 (cloth). Reviewed by Dennis M.
Swanson, Seminary Librarian.
The evangelical movement has, in recent years, struggled with its identity,
to the point that the theme of the 2002 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theologi-
cal Society was “Evangelical Boundaries.” Even the most recent edition of the
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes, “The very nature of evangelicalism never
was a unified movement but a collection of emphases based on a common core of
belief—a core that itself is now under discussion” (Dictionary of Evangelical
Theology, Walter A. Elwell, ed., 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 409).
Seeking to detail those various “emphases” the author of Encyclopedia of
Evangelicalism admits to a “quixotic venture” in which he attempts to “provide a
sense of both the history and the extraordinary breadth of this popular movement”
(vii). And while parts of his effort are admirable, on the whole his work is a
disappointing muddle that confuses rather than clarifies the nature of evangelicalism.
Properly speaking the muddle begins with the title. The work is not properly
an “encyclopedia” as the author admits when acknowledging that he alone is
responsible for all of the articles (although he discloses receiving assistance from
several individuals). Nor is it “encyclopedic” in nature; the articles often reflect
outdated or incorrect information and the bibliographic well from which the articles
draw is very limited.
The problems with this work range from typographical to methodological,
but clearly the underlying problem is the author’s inability to define accurately the
evangelical movement. More articles relate to American fundamentalism than to
evangelicalism. Though the two are related, they are not identical movements.
In terms of layout the book lacks both indexes and useful bibliographies.
Articles often have no bibliographic support, and others have only a single reference.
The proofreading and editing are also problematic. Charles H. Spurgeon’s named
is rendered “Surgeon” (177) and Alva J. McClain is rendered “McLain” (249).
Some articles reflect incomplete or outdated information, such as the entry for the
Evangelical Theological Society (201-2) in which the quotation of the doctrinal
statement omits the affirmation of the Trinity added several years ago. When
references are cited, they are usually dated; for instance, the entry for Grace
Theological Seminary (249) cites the catalogue for 1995. The entry for Jack
Hayford (274) makes no mention of the creation of a seminary under his leadership,
although this occurred over five years ago. In fact, except for repeated references
to another book by the author (Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory, 2000), only a few
bibliographic references are dated after 1995. Theological omissions also occur. In
the entry for T. D. Jakes (300), his anti-trinitarianism and other non-evangelical
theology are unmentioned.
268 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Beyond these issues, some of the entry selections almost defy explanation.
For example, there is an entry for Trent Dilfer (176) containing a nice recitation of
his career in the National Football League along with a rather innocuous quotation
related to Christianity. Interestingly enough, the entry for Dilfer has more space than
that for the Second Coming of Christ (515). The entry on the Overhead Projector
(432) is one of the more odd inclusions of this work. Lengthy entries are reserved
for several Christian rock bands such as Third Day (576), Stryper (558), Newsboys
(408-9), and Jars of Clay (301-2).
This work cannot be recommended as reference for evangelicalism. It is
an eclectic and non-cohesive collection of one author’s idiosyncratic caricature of
evangelicalism, poorly crafted and even more poorly executed.
Meir Ben-Dov. Historical Atlas of Jerusalem. New York: Continuum, 2002. xvi
+ 400 pp. $50.00 (cloth). Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson, Seminary
Librarian.
This volume is the English-language edition of a work originally published
in Hebrew (Jerusalem: Carta, The Israel Map and Publishing Company, 2000) by the
author. Meir Ben-Dov is one of the leading Israeli archaeologists and key advisor
to the various ongoing excavations in Jerusalem.
The work blends a thematic and chronological approach to the history of
the city of Jerusalem. It details the larger geographic setting of the city, in Israel
and the even larger Fertile Crescent, along with the geographic and environmental
features. Then comes the history of Jerusalem from the Canaanite period to the
modern era. This volume is richly (perhaps sometimes too richly) illustrated with
photographs, maps, and drawings (all black and white).
The strength of the text is the general survey of material. The author excels
at detailing the religious history of Jerusalem and the role the geographic location
in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Also receiving excellent coverage is the role of
the European powers, beginning with the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and
ending with General Edmund Allenby and the British and their efforts to gain control
of the city and the surrounding region. This work is not without its weaknesses,
however. Though Ben-Dov ably defends his maximalist view of the boundaries of
Jerusalem after Nehemiah’s rebuilding (85-88) vis-à-vis the minimalist view of
Michael Avi-Yonah and the intermediate view of Raphael Grafman, he entirely
ignores the discussion of various theories related to the location of the Temple and
the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount. Given the author’s discussion of Jewish,
Islamic, and Christian interest in the city, a brief discussion of prophetic views as to
the future of Jerusalem would also have been useful.
The flaws in this book are minor, and for the beginning student or those
interested in a survey of the history of Jerusalem and an introduction to the basic
Book Reviews 269
historical and cultural geography of the city, this book is recommended.
Craig C. Broyles, ed. Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2001. 272 pp. $19.99 (paper). Reviewed by William D. Barrick,
Professor of Old Testament.
Interpreting the Old Testament is a collection of essays on the topic of OT
interpretation edited by Craig C. Broyles (associate professor, Trinity Western
University), who also contributed two of the essays: “Interpreting the Old Testa-
ment” (13-62) and “Traditions, Intertextuality, and Canon” (157-75). The first of the
two establishes the tone for the volume. Broyles claims that all the essays “focus on
‘how to’” (20). Throughout the essay he illustrates each step of exegesis by an
application to Isaiah 41:21-29. Broyles emphasizes that the issue in exegesis is the
divine intent of the text (25). In view of the divine author of Scripture, meditation
must “inform each step of exegesis, whereby we prayerfully and respectfully consult
the author for each question we pose” (27). Overall, this reviewer found Broyles’
approach sensitive to the inspired nature of the biblical text and to the delicate task
of the exegete. In response to an increasing application of literary analysis in
exegesis, he warns that “we must be extremely cautious that we not apply modern
expectations about literary conventions to ancient texts” (56). Unfortunately, his
view of the canonization and editing of the OT text lacks clarity (46). As a result, his
essay appears to contain contradictions (51, 55 n. 36).
In “Language and Text of the Old Testament” (63-83), David W. Baker
(professor of OT and Semitic languages, Ashland Theological Seminary) fails to
include the Samaritan Pentateuch in his list of relevant sources to the OT text (69).
In addition, he seems to place more confidence in the textual decisions of the editors
of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia than they deserve (70). In his treatments of Gen
4:8 and 7:6 he could have shown a greater sensitivity to the translation philosophy
of the LXX in the former (72) and to Hebrew idiom in the case of the latter (73).
Absent from his discussion of Amos 9:12 is the possibility that the theological views
of the LXX translators may have affected their treatment of “Edom” in that passage
(79). Baker’s unsupported opinion concerning the old crux in Isa 7:14 (82) ignores
the significant linguistic and contextual evidence marshalled by such Isaianic
scholars as Edward J. Young, Charles Lee Feinberg, and Alec M otyer, as well as the
insightful studies published by Walter Kaiser, J. Barton Payne, and Hobart Freeman.
In spite of these disappointments, the essay has much to commend it as an
introduction to the subject of OT textual criticism.
Paul Edward Hughes (assistant professor, Trinity Western University)
provides an excellent historical description of the development of the various
methods for the critical study of the Scriptures (“Compositional History: Source,
Form, and Redaction Criticism,” 221-44). He correctly identifies the conservative
270 The Master’s Seminary Journal
concept that “the biblical interpreter is a neutral observer whose aim is to cull
objective data through use of the historical-grammatical method” (222). However,
he promptly distances himself from that perspective by first stating that such an
approach works better for NT studies. Then he declares that “although meaning can
be derived from the historical-grammatical recovery of an author’s intention, if and
where possible, to say that this hermeneutical approach is the sole means of
obtaining interpretive results remains too narrow” (223). Indeed, Hughes adheres to
the questionable opinion that the text of Scripture itself indicates that there is “a
broader set of meanings that function beyond the intention of the author” (223).
Interestingly, he describes postmodern critics as “more humble in relation to
knowledge, suspicious of power structures that they see behind texts and their
consented readings, and realistic about the subjective role of the reader in the
interpretive act” (225). He certainly does not have the same evaluation of
postmodernism as William Dever (see the review of Dever’s book, What Did the
Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? in this issue).
One of the most valuable essays in this collection is that contributed by
Richard S. Hess (reader in OT, Roehampton Institute, London, England; “Ancient
Near Eastern Studies,” 201-20). Not only does he deal with the important matter of
interpreting the historical materials (202-8), he provides an invaluable annotated
listing of both general and specialized sources for research (208-20). Librarians will
find the latter a helpful acquisitions guide.
Authors from a variety of academic and church backgrounds wrote the
volume’s essays. The remainder of the essays include “Reading the Old Testament
as Literature” (85-123) by V. Philips Long (professor of OT, Covenant Theological
Seminary), “Old Testament History and Sociology”(125-55) by John Bimson
(director of studies, OT Faculty, Trinity College, Bristol, England), “The History of
Religion, Biblical Theology, and Exegesis” (177-99) by Elmer A. Martens
(professor emeritus of OT, Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary), and “Theology
and the Old Testament” (245-64) by Jonathan R. Wilson (associate professor of
Religious Studies, Westmont College).
Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. Mesopotamia and the Bible:
Comparative Explorations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002. 395 pp. (paper),
$29.99. Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson, Seminary Librarian
This book is the collection of a series of papers presented at the annual
meeting of the Near East Archaeological Society in 1995. The subject that year was
“Syro-Mesopotamia and the Bible.” The Near East Archaeological Society is an
association of evangelicals whose members must affirm the twofold doctrinal
statement:
CI believe that the Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of
Book Reviews 271
God written, and therefore inerrant in the autographs.
CI believe in the unique Divine inspiration, integrity, and authority of the
Bible.
The society is primarily concerned with the archaeological exploration and study of
the lands of the Bible and holds its annual meeting in conjunction with the
Evangelical Theological Society.
The book consists of 14 essays on themes of ancient Mesopotamian history
and archaeology. The articles are not designed to be introductory, but require a level
of familiarity with introductory literature and issues involved. The work contains an
introduction in which the purpose of the work is detailed as “a description of certain
aspects of that [Mesopotamian] civilization that may (or may not) help the reader
place the Bible in its greater ancient Near Eastern context” (8). The editors
anticipate questions as to the inclusion of material related to Ugarit, Alalakh, and
Elba with the notation that, “in this book we will take a very loose definition of
Mesopotamia as encompassing some regions of Syria immediately west of the
Tigris-Euphrates Valley that were obviously connected culturally to traditional
Mesopotamia” (ibid.). A helpful nine-page listing of abbreviations as well as a
Scripture and name index are included. Each article contains a significant
bibliography at the end. Two minor criticisms are the lack of a subject index and the
lack of maps, charts, or other illustrations. The latter would have been very helpful
in several of the articles in which even those with a good working knowledge of the
people and places would have been well served by a visual anchor.
In terms of content, two significant articles deal with the identity and rule
of several Assyrian kings, particularly Sargon, Pul, and Tiglath-Pileser by Steven W.
Holloway (68-87) and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (288-329). One article, by Edwin
Yamauchi on the “Eastern Jewish Diaspora” (356-77), is especially significant, as
it relates to the issue of the continuation of the Jewish racial identity in the face of
forced exile and often forced assimilation. Another significant article is that of an
editor, Mark W. Chavalas, on the subject of “Assyriology and Biblical Studies: A
Century of Tension” (21-67), in which he details the care that must be taken in
seeing (or creating) parallels between biblical texts and various texts discovered in
Syro-Mesopotamia (e.g., Mari, Nuzi, Ebla). David C. Deuel, former associate
professor of OT at The Master’s Seminary, contributed an article on his area of
expertise related to the role and status of royal messengers in the Ancient Near East.
Another article, that of Richard E. Averbeck on Sumer and the Bible (88-125), is
significant, particularly as it relates to the parallels between the construction of the
Solomonic Temple and temples in the Summerian culture.
All of the articles represent the best in evangelical scholarship in
archaeology, Ancient Near East history and civilization, and their proper relationship
to biblical studies. This work is highly recommended.
272 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Mal Couch, ed. A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 1999. 455 pp. $25.99 (cloth). Reviewed by Keith Essex, Assistant
Professor of Bible Exposition.
In his Foreword to this volume, general editor Mal Couch recounts his own
pilgrimage with the book of Acts. For many years, he resolved to avoid teaching
from the book because of the complicated nature of the narrative. However, as his
concern arose over the confusion he saw in the contemporary church, he was drawn
to reread and study Acts. He has now come to realize that “[e]ven though Acts is a
transitional narration, the lessons for today are innumerable for our generation of
Bible teachers, missionaries, and pastors” (7). To help others renew a revitalized
sense of mission and urgency, Couch has compiled this theology and survey of Acts.
Contributors to this work in addition to himself include Paul Benware, Thomas
Figart, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Robert Lightner, Steven M cAvoy, Russell Penney,
and Randall Price.
Parts 1 and 2 of the handbook introduce the reader to the theology of Acts
(11-176). Part 1 begins with a chapter on the introductory issues of Acts. Then
follow six chapters that discuss the church, Jesus Christ, Prophecy, Demonology,
Paul, and the Temple in the book of Acts. Part 2 includes two chapters on the
theology and work of the Holy Spirit in Acts. The survey of Acts is a verse-by-verse
background guide to the book which comprises Part 3 (177-399). Each chapter of
Acts is introduced with a synopsis of its contents, followed by comments on
significant people, places, and events in the chapter. The Appendixes of the volume
contain a three-page timeline of the events recorded in Acts, followed by three short
essays discussing the laying on of hands in the OT and the Gospels, the sign gifts,
and progressive dispensationalism and the book of Acts (401-23). Endnotes for each
chapter of the handbook appear after the appendixes, with the two chapters of Part
2 [noted as chapters 1 and 2 in the Table of Contents and the body of the text] listed
as chapters 8 and 9 (425-55).
The editor has compiled a very valuable introduction to the theology of the
book of Acts. The discussion of the theology is based on what Couch views as the
main purpose of Acts, “to record history and not develop doctrine” (18). As a
theological historical narrative, one can discern at least seven transitions in the book
of Acts: from the Gospel to the Epistles, from synagogue to church, from Israel to
the church, from Jesus being present to the Holy Spirit being present, from the Spirit
being with believers to the Spirit being in believers, from Jews to Gentiles, and from
law to grace (18-20). These are what the editor labels “Dispensational Transitions
of Acts” upon which are developed the “Dispensational Purposes of Acts” (24-25).
These purposes have five categories in the book of Acts. The historical purpose
traces the spread of the gospel and the growth of the church while recording Israel’s
rejection of the resurrected Jesus during the first thirty years of church history. The
theological purpose authenticates the new faith as a work of the Holy Spirit. The
apologetic purpose proves that the new movement was well received by civil
Book Reviews 273
government officials. The eschatological purpose develops the mystery of the
Kingdom program. The national purpose describes the place of Israel in the plan of
God.
This dispensationalist understanding of the purposes of Acts serves as the
foundation for the understanding of the specific topics addressed in the remainder
of Part 1 and Part 2 of the handbook. The most important subject addressed in this
volume is the new work of the Holy Spirit in the dispensation of the church. Crouch
states, “When a new dispensation is begun, or a new economy of God’s rule
initiated, unusual transitional events may occur that are common to neither
dispensation” (121). Thus, the ministry of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts has both
aspects of continuity and discontinuity with the OT. Most important, unrepeatable
works of the Holy Spirit unique to the beginning of the church age also occur. These
include the outpouring of the Spirit, “signs and wonders,” and the gift of tongues.
The handbook contains an excellent discussion of the dispensational understanding
of Holy Spirit’s ministry in the book of Acts.
Part 3 of the handbook is not as valuable to the reader. Most of the
background comments have been gleaned from standard evangelical commentaries
on Acts. The reader would be better served reading firsthand such works as F. F.
Bruce, The Book of Acts (NICNT); Richard Longenecker, “Acts” in The Expositor’s
Bible Commentary, volume 9; and John Polhill, Acts (New American Commentary).
A better exposition of the dispensational understanding of Acts is available in
Stanley Toussaint, “Acts” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Reading Toussaint
after Parts 1 and 2 of the handbook would be very profitable for the expositor of
Acts.
The overall impact of this volume is marred by the number of errors
uncorrected in the editorial process. The following are a few examples of many that
could be recounted. Peter, instead of Paul, is said to have quoted Hab 1:5 in Acts
13:40-41 (90). Iconium is omitted from the locations Paul visited on his first
missionary journey (105). Jerusalem, rather than Rome, is stated to be the place Paul
was under house arrest (107). Information concerning Philip, one of the seven, is
used in explaining what Philip the apostle did (191). Three thousand, not five
thousand, were added to the church on the Day of Pentecost (203). Philip, instead
of Stephen, is said to have been preaching to the Hellenistic synagogue in Jerusalem
(251). Paul is stated to have spent a year and a half in Ephesus when in fact it was
about three years (352).
A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles is a good introduction to the
dispensational understanding of the book. The volume meets a definite need in the
contemporary discussion of the theology of Acts. This reviewer would hope that the
editor and publisher would make the needed corrections in further printings to ensure
that the impact of this handbook would not be defused by its factual errors.
274 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Jimmy H. Davis and Harry L. Poe. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design and the
Existence of God. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holman, 2002. 252 pp.
$10.39 (paper). Reviewed by Trevor Craigen, Associate Professor of Theology.
Two professors at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, teamed up again
to write this sequel to their first offering, Science and Faith: An Evangelical
Dialogue. Their reading constituency, they noted, would most probably be
Christians with an interest in “the relationship of modern science to their biblical
faith” (xv). This statement, unfortunately, highlights what is true: those committed
to evolution or theistic evolution rarely break the covers of a book on creation and
design. Maybe it is expecting too much to hope that some would read this book and
be stirred to re-think their worldview on origins.
Criteria, not made clear to the reader, was obviously exercised by the
authors as they sought to cover concisely and in survey fashion quite a broad scope
of writers on worldviews and the concept of design and purpose down through the
ages. The treatment ends up being quite uneven. Readers will obviously differ on
what they would like to have seen included, as they skim across material from
Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Calvin, Pascal, Tennant, Butler, Paley, Descartes, Hume,
Locke, and Aquinas, to name just a few—and that’s omitting mention made of
modern-day researchers and writers. The constraints of surveying the material
undoubtedly led to more detailed definition and categorization being bypassed.
Endnotes are at a minimum, and that may prove to be the weakness of the book in
that the reader could very well look for cross-references to other more detailed
treatments and not find any pertinent information. The content assumes that the
reader is at least aware of the philosophers being referred to and of the scientific
theories mentioned. Regular insertion of short paragraphs headed “Observations”
provides summaries of what has been presented and points to what is yet to come,
or poses appropriate questions arising from what has been discussed.
Given the intense debate today on the age of the earth and on the reality of
creation ex nihilo and on no pre-existing elements or matter, some cross-referencing
to literature on this subject is decidedly preferable. Unfortunately, the reader’s
attention is not directed to legitimate resources which critically accept an ‘old-earth’
theory. In fact, one short statement on Michael Behe not being a ‘young-earth’
proponent is suddenly introduced without any further response or explanation (200).
It leaves the impression that being in such a category is not the thing to be. Why so?
The matter of the age of the earth is not a settled issue in evangelicalism and
deserves some response even if it be only a footnoted cross-reference to relevant
material thereon. It is disappointing when excellent material authored by reputable
scholars on a ‘young earth’ is overlooked. The Big Bang Theory, to be sure, has to
be mentioned when dealing with origins and the question of time in relation to the
beginning, especially when the origin of matter is not included in the explanation for
the beginning of the universe (39), but it should not be left without some critique.
Pointing to Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time and his challenging question
Book Reviews 275
“What place, then, for a Creator?” if the universe is completely self-contained,
having neither beginning nor end, and just simply is, effectively demonstrates that
evidence of design and purpose does not convince of the reality and immanence of
God.
The fine-tuning of the universe, the uncommon, rare, state of the earth,
intelligent design, irreducible complexity, information systems, and interdependence
of living organisms all receive due attention in chapters 3-6. Reading of hedrons,
leptons, and elemental bosons, of DNA and RNA, of string theory, and of an extra-
dimensional universe will alert one to just how much he may have forgotten from
past courses and of how much he has yet to learn! Again the point is made that
scientists will not necessarily be coerced into acknowledging a Designer just because
there appears to be design (109, 114, 194). Knowing the Designer perhaps comes
first and means that the researcher and observer finds design and is also awed and
amazed at the beauty of His handiwork (see Chapter 7, “Awe and Wonder”).
Some of the headings in the outline are humorous and bring forth a brief
smile or moue. “Locke and the Key to Design,” or “Religion Boyles Down to
Design, or “The Butler Did It,” or “Marshall Newton Tames the Wild, Wild
Universe,” or “Where’s the Beef?” may have some mnemonic value.
This reviewer did find the book stimulating his desire to turn again to the
bookshelves and to pluck off a couple of volumes for a re-read, namely Michael
Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, John Byl’s
God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space and the Universe, and Stuart
Burgess’ Hallmarks of Design: Evidence of Design in the Natural World.
Editorial laxity may be evidenced in that page numbers for Chapter 2 are
cited differently on the page than for other chapters, and that Figure 6.3 is placed at
the bottom of the page before it is introduced and referenced two pages later (169,
171).
Davis and Poe’s book could be profitably used if it is meshed with
additional reading assigned by and extra notes supplied by the instructor.
William G. Dever. What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know
It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. xiii + 313 pp. $25.00 (cloth). Reviewed by William
D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament.
When a scholar, who openly declares his own secular humanism (x) and
who denies biblical inerrancy (21, 62-63) and supernaturalism (46), raises an alarm
over the infiltration of the Society of Biblical Literature by radical revisionists (7;
“new nihilists,” 23) and deplores the deconstructionist tendencies of so-called
literary criticism in the field of biblical studies (10-19), it is certainly high time that
inerrantists wake up and remove their rose-colored glasses. In addition, one must
276 The Master’s Seminary Journal
remember that the author of this volume has been an open opponent of “biblical
archaeology” for a quarter century (33). Dever associates the subject matter of his
book with current issues in Jesus studies when he declares, “the malaise in the
scholarly pursuit of ‘the historical Jesus’ parallels almost exactly the current crisis
in the search for ‘the historical Israel.’ The same methodological issues are
involved” (3). However, he does not reveal the parallels nor does he return to the
topic again.
In an insightful summary of postmodernism (25), the author demonstrates
that it is the latest contributor to the current historiographical crisis. As much as
many evangelicals (including this reviewer) become nauseated with the overabun-
dance of presentations, books, and essays on postmodernism, it is an enemy of
biblical faith whose strategies conservatives must understand if they are to avoid its
leavening influence. What is more sickening than the proliferation of essays on
postmodernism is the inroads it has made even in the most evangelical of pulpits and
podiums.
The author’s main concern is with the neglect of archaeology and the way
that its examination of the biblical world has been treated as irrelevant by the
revisionists (26). Dever explains that the demise of history and historical exegesis
is connected with the neglect of archaeology in institutions for biblical studies. He
identifies Philip R. Davies, Thomas L. Thompson, Niels Peter Lemche, Keith W.
Whitelam, and Israel Finkelstein (who is less radical than the previous four) as the
key proponents of revisionism (27, 28-44). The insidious nature of revisionists is
best seen in their avoidance of terms like “deconstruction” and “new literary
criticism,” or their denial that these terms describe their position. Seminary deans
ought to keep in mind Dever’s sage observation: “I think that it is always instructive
to pay more attention to what people actually do, than to what they say or think they
are doing” (27). One may deny having any part in harmful aspects of literary
criticism, but what have they been writing and teaching?
Granted, Dever sometimes may be an alarmist (by his own admission, 38),
and he has written a clearly pejorative description of revisionists while claiming that
he does not employ “revisionist” in “a necessarily pejorative sense” (47-48 n. 47).
However, all faults aside, his warning is valid and solidly demonstrated.
In all honesty, however, the same standards must be applied to Dever’s
volume. In some ways his discourse amounts to “the pot calling the kettle black.”
What difference is there between the neo-nihilist’s denial of biblical historicity and
Dever’s insistence that the biblical accounts concerning the patriarchs, the exodus
from Egypt, and the Israelite conquest of Canaan are nothing more than “‘histori-
cized fiction’ at best” (62-63; cf. 97-98, 121)? He denies any historical value to
Ruth, Esther, Job, and Daniel since he has determined that they are merely
“historical novellae with contrived ‘real-life settings’” (99). Indeed, though the
author criticizes the revisionists for treating the Hebrew Bible as “‘pious fiction,’ in
effect a literary hoax” (102), he is not far removed from that position himself. He
sees the greatest historical value in 1 and 2 Kings (101) and Judges (122-23).
Book Reviews 277
At what point will critics allow the text to stand as an independent historical
witness produced by accurate ancient historians? Current revisionists and self-
acclaimed historians (Dever included) manifest academic hubris and provincialism
when they present themselves as more objective, more sophisticated, and far more
accurate than the ancient biblical writers. What difference is there between the elite
intellectuals whom Dever claims wrote the Bible (105) and “scholars” like Dever
and Thompson? The writers of Scripture lived the very history Dever and the
revisionists are attempting to rewrite on the basis of their self-proclaimed superior
knowledge (what Dever himself calls “a curious conceit,” 265).
Dever laments that there has been no dialogue between biblical studies and
archaeology (80). That would be like expecting the medical profession (here being
compared to biblical studies) to dialogue with religious groups denying the reality
of disease or of bodily existence (modern humanistic archaeology). Of what use
would such dialogue be? To put it in biblical terms, “what has a believer in common
with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor 6:15, NASB). When both biblical theology and biblical
archaeology have been derided, demonized, and discarded unilaterally (83), where
is there any room for dialogue? Obviously, the author is calling for dialogue among
fellow secular humanists, the new elite, the new self-proclaimed authorities (no man
of faith is a “scholar” according to Dever, 98 n. 1), claiming greater wisdom than
God Himself (whom such humanists have conveniently fictionalized as a mere
figment of ignorant human imagination). Ironically, the author himself recognizes
that his attitude does not foster dialogue (88).
The symbiosis model of an indigenous origin of Israelites in the 13th–12th
centuries B.C. in the central region north of Jerusalem is the current archeological
fad (110-19). It ignores two factors: (1) Evidence for the 13th–12th centuries does
not prove an absence of an Israelite presence in the 15th–14th centuries. (2)
According to the biblical record, the invading Israelites were not to destroy
everything in their path, but, to the contrary, were to take over and utilize existing
residential structures, cisterns, presses (olive and wine), cisterns, and vineyards
(Deut 6:10-12; 19:1)—and that is what the Hebrew Bible records that they did (Josh
24:13).
Speaking of the Merneptah stele, Dever announces that “one unimpeachable
witness in the court of history is sufficient” (118). What about allowing Scripture to
be that witness? Robert Dick Wilson ably defended the a priori nature of biblical
evidence in his classic work, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament
(Moody, 1959 reprint). By elevating the evidence of an Egyptian pharaoh over the
evidence of Scripture, Dever betrays his prejudice. Sadly, he recognizes the problem
in others, but does not see it in himself. Later in the book he asks, “How is it that the
biblical texts are always approached with postmodernism’s typical ‘hermeneutics of
suspicion,’ but the nonbiblical texts are taken at face value? It seems to be that the
Bible is automatically held guilty unless proven innocent” (128).
In Chapter 4 (“Getting at the ‘History behind the History’: What
Convergences between Texts and Artifacts Tell Us about Israelite Origins and the
278 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Rise of the State,” 97-157) the author presents a masterful defense of the historical
accuracy of biblical descriptions of the Solomonic era. Throughout Chapters 4 and
5 Dever illuminates his discussions with archaeological evidence punctuated by
maps, drawings, and photos. He demonstrates that the archaeological evidence
confirms the city gates (131-38), the administrative districts (138-44), and the
architecture of the Temple (144-57) in the Solomonic era. Dever argues that it strains
credulity to claim (as the revisionists do) that writers in the Hellenistic period would
be capable of inventing such a detailed record of the 10th–9th centuries B.C. (137,
157; esp. 275-77).
Chapter 5 (“Daily Life in Israel in the Time of the Divided Monarchy,”
159-243) discusses a number of historical issues including the synchronism of
biblical king lists (160-67) and the Assyrian invasion in the days of Sennacherib and
Hezekiah (167-72). In the latter, Dever fails to mention Isaiah’s detailed lists of
cities affected by the Assyrian campaigns (e.g., 10:28-32 with 12 towns). His main
emphases are on the folk religion that existed during the divided monarchy (173-98),
fortifications (198-202), the presence of literacy in ancient Israel (202-21), and
commerce (221-30). Rounding out the chapter are brief discussions of pottery (230-
34), art (especially as related to seals and ivories, 234-39), and secondary royal
residences (239-45).
At times Dever seems to contradict himself. In the discussion of folk
religion, for example, he repeatedly harps on how the Bible “almost totally ignores”
(173) the existence of folk religion together with its various artifacts (like the “mold-
made terra-cotta female figurines,” 193; or, the small altars, 188-90). In the matter
of the small altars, he again largely ignores passages like Isa 27:9. However, he
states that the biblical writers knew what they were talking about: “the religious
situation about which they complained was real, not invented by them as a foil for
their revisionist message” (195). Even at that, Dever still leaves the reader with the
impression that he would be suspicious of and question the truth of any religious
literature that is devoted only to that religion. That seems a bit simplistic and
unrealistic. The Bible does present only one religion as true. That does not mean,
however, that the Bible is inaccurate in its description of that religion or culture just
because it does not describe any opposing cults in great detail.
Contrary to Dever’s antipathy to the historical authenticity of writing in
texts like Deut 6:6-9 and Exod 17:14 (he deems them “anachronistic,” 204), there
is far more evidence of alphabetic writing centuries before the divided monarchy
than he admits. For example, the 16th–14th century graffiti at Serabit el-Khadem
cannot be omitted from the discussion of early literacy. If these informal inscriptions
were actually left behind by Semitic slaves to the Egyptians, it would demonstrate
that the common people (about whom Dever is normally very concerned, cf. 105,
173-74) were literate even down to the lowest classes. Interestingly, championing the
common folk is a charge Dever makes against the revisionists (262). Inscriptions like
those at Serabit el-Khadem should also be evaluated with regard to the Mosaic
references to writing. When the revisionists dismiss evidence in this fashion, Dever
Book Reviews 279
asks, “What can one say when scholars resort to such desperate measures to deny or
to suppress evidence that may threaten their cherished theories?” (208-9).
In the final chapter (245-94) Dever revisits some of the issues he had
introduced in the beginning of the volume. He summarizes the relationship of
postmodernism and deconstructionism to the revisionists and the impact it is having
on biblical studies (245-66). While bringing his conclusions to bear upon the biblical
record and its historicity as revealed through archaeology (267-74), Dever provides
a very clear definition of what archaeology cannot do and what it can do (269; cf.
282). Next, he wrestles with the issues of secular history, theology, faith, and
hermeneutics (281-90). Lastly, the author presents a brief essay on the impact of the
Bible on Western tradition (290-93) and offers a final defense of his own secular
humanism (293-94).
His answers to the questions within the book’s title are forthright: “They
knew a lot; and they knew it early, based on older and genuinely historical accounts,
both oral and written” (273). Among his many parting shots at revisionists, the
author notes that they have not really addressed a key problem to their view—that
of the Septuagint, a translation prior to the second century B.C. of the revisionists’
yet nonexistent Hebrew Bible (274).
Putting criticism of Dever’s own anti-biblicism aside, and granting that he
is at times supportive of the Hebrew Bible in his own humanistic way, no serious
student of the Hebrew Bible should ignore this volume. Every evangelical should
read it and understand that we are in a battle for the Bible as the Word of God,
inerrant and authoritative for doctrine and practice. Dever’s warnings make it crystal
clear that it is time for evangelicals to re-evaluate ecclesiastical and academic leaders
(pastors and teachers alike) who are enamored with the Society of Biblical Literature
and attracted to secular humanism, liberal literary criticism, deconstructionism, and
minimalism.
This volume proves that every evangelical seminary’s curriculum should
include the requirement that all graduates not only be steeped in the biblical
languages (3), but well-acquainted with the following archaeological finds that
provide clear testimony to the authenticity and historicity of the biblical text: the Tel
Dan inscription (29, 128-29, 166-67), Hezekiah’s tunnel inscription (30, 94), the
Mesha stele (32), the Ekron inscription (39), Merneptah’s stele (42, 94, 118), and
the ‘Izbet Sartah abecedary (114, 116). To neglect these things is to strip the biblical
scholar of the weapons necessary to vanquish the revisionist approach to the
Scriptures and to respond to Dever’s own form of deconstructionism.
Stanley A. Ellisen. Parables in the Eye of the Storm: Christ’s Responses in the Face
of Conflict. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001. 272 pp. $10.39 (paper). Reviewed
by James E. Rosscup, Professor of Bible Exposition.
280 The Master’s Seminary Journal
The late, long-time professor of biblical literature at Western Baptist
Seminary, Portland, Oregon, finished this clear work after retiring. It stems from
a 1960s doctoral dissertation, “The Hermeneutics of the Parables,” at Dallas
Theological Seminary, plus a teaching career of learning and crafting.
Ellisen sees a grasp of Jesus’ parables, one-third of His teaching, as the key
to being properly impacted by His words. He views parables in the context of
opposition. His writing is lucid, careful in word artistry, and colorful as well as
scholarly. Ellisen felt that since Jesus was never boring, he should not be. He
weighs every statement to reveal the need provoking each story, main factors in a
situation, the chief idea, supports for the interpretation, and how principles from each
parable apply cogently today.
Among discussions is the messianic Kingdom (Chapter 2), a theme Ellisen
keeps foremost, plus exegetical guidelines for interpretation (Chapter 4). Other
chapters discuss hints of disaster in early parables, mysteries of the Kingdom, and
stories on entering the Kingdom, servanthood, human duty and God’s concern,
preparing for the Kingdom, future rewards, and rejection/loss. An epilog summa-
rizes the book’s highlights.
The hermeneutics discussion discourages allegorizing, foreign moral
generalizations, redaction criticism, and destructive denials by The Jesus Seminar
about words being from Jesus. Five steps capture each parable’s main message:
identify the problem that provoked Jesus to cast a lesson in a parable, find the key
idea, coordinate details with this key, clarify and defend the chief point, and apply
relevantly what Jesus aimed to spotlight.
As this reviewer understands Ellisen’s idea of the Matthew 13 mysteries,
Ellisen sees the mysteries as relating not to the OT but to a new kingdom phase until
Jesus comes to fulfill the OT expectation. However, it appears better to relate
parabolic points of Matthew 13 to the same anticipated OT Kingdom, these giving
facets pertinent to that Kingdom expectation after Israel’s rejection and in the
interadvent age before the Kingdom comes. For example, despite wide Israelite
rejection, the forecast kingdom will succeed in that various reactions to its message
will relate to whether people will enter it or not when it comes (soils, wheat and
tares). Also in view is a present-age development of interests related to the future
Kingdom so that at its second-advent coming many will have qualified to enter it
(mustard seed, leaven), the Kingdom’s value (treasure, pearl), separation of saved
and unsaved when the Kingdom arrives (tares, dragnet), and giving the message
pertaining to the kingdom to prepare people for it (Householder).
Ellisen argues that the OT predicted a kingdom on earth to fulfill God’s
covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3, 7). He adds that Jesus speaks about a kingdom
with spiritual values but on earth. “The notion of a spiritual kingdom in human
hearts without these outward dimensions was foreign to the thinking of the prophets,
as well as to John” (as in Matt 3:3). John expected the Messiah to reestablish an
empire in place of David’s, so did Luke’s Gospel in 1:32-33 and Matthew’s Gospel
(33). The Kingdom Jesus referred to was rejected by many Israelites, and He will
Book Reviews 281
set it up at His future advent, restoring Israel and reigning righteously. “Mysteries”
in Matthew 13, in view of national rejection of the Messiah, refer to facets Jesus will
effect in His Kingdom plans, using the present age before He fulfills the covenant
plan to Israel. At the same time, He blesses the receptive of other nations also.
Jesus pursues a course in which aspects that the OT had not stipulated (“mysteries”)
must occur before Israel’s national fulfillment. In these, Jesus opens up “His broader
purposes of world redemption” (38), part of God’s intent via international aspects
of the covenant with Abraham.
Chapter 3 defines a parable (43) and distinguishes between valid biblical
allegory and parable. It gives reasons why human allegorical interpretations are
wrong; they read foreign ideas into Scripture and differ from valid biblical allegory.
Ellisen notes the advantages of parables to convey truths: the stories’ universal
appeal, the potency of provocative analogies, simplicity, and stimulating hearers’
objective judgment.
The book appears to be the best yet among premillennial works in
articulating crystal-clear summaries of most parables and defending these by
interpretive principles. Ellisen makes vivid use of customs to elucidate parables, and
pinpoints relevant issues in well-organized paragraphs headed by bold captions. The
sower and soils (Matthew 13 and parallels) has rocky soil refer to “superficial, party-
going fans” who loved Jesus’ miracles but “deserted Him when the party was over.”
Jesus depicts via rocky and thorny areas those who are not truly saved. Leaven does
not depict evil, but a positive idea: despite rejection of Jesus up through Matthew
12, Kingdom interests will prosper as God uses an interadvent era by the dynamic
of the Holy Spirit working within human lives (John 14:16-17; 102), corresponding
to yeast spreading in dough. Treasure and pearl depict a kingdom of such worth that
no sacrifice or effort is too great in light of it. The friend at midnight (Luke 11) does
not urge persistence in prayer per se, but the giving of the neighbor inside to show
goodness (and God as the loving Father doing this much more, vv. 11-12). Yet
God’s character encourages persistent, confident praying.
Endnotes for chapters reflect wide research in relevant literature of various
viewpoints. The last two pages index discussions of thirty-nine parables. Only a
high rating does justice to this book for teachers, students, church leaders, and
Christians in general. It is very readable, relevantly stirring, and has many sound
perceptions on issues.
Norman L. Geisler, H. Wayne House, and Max Herrera. The Battle for God:
Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001. 336
pp. $12.79 (paper). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup, Professor of Bible
Exposition.
Two well-known evangelicals and a graduate student (Herrera) at Southern
282 The Master’s Seminary Journal
Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina, team for this volume. They reason
that “openness of God” advocates have departed from orthodoxy. But more than this,
they attempt to show in detail, in eleven well-organized chapters, that the God of
traditional Christian belief does know all things ahead of time and does not change
His purposes or need to learn anything when it happens.
The book’s positive thrust relates what God’s attributes mean, why
believers can live confidently, and why it is vital to fight the battle against theories
that represent God as far less than He is. The book begins with a section about
neotheistic concepts of God by writers such as Gregory Boyd. Other chapters cover
God’s omniscience, eternality, immutability, simplicity, impassibility, relatibility to
sovereignty, dangers of neotheism, and the issue of whether neotheism is orthodox.
Their decision is that neotheism is not orthodox. Appendix One reviews what
church confessions taught; Appendix Two deals with whether neotheism accords
with theological tradition (they say it does not); Appendix Three responds to Clark
Pinnock’s book, Most Moved Mover, issued when The Battle for God was well
along. Ending the work is a six-and-a-half-page bibliography, then a subject index.
The chapters offer positive biblical support for the aspects of God that are
their focus, pertinent beliefs of early fathers, and later statements by leaders such as
the Reformers. They observe neotheist arguments from Bible texts and respond to
these. Such a gradual covering of so many issues and passages thoroughly stimulates
the serious reader with its overall impact of varied reasoning. At the same time,
users will find the book quite readable.
Key examples surface, such as Isaiah 38 and Jer 26:19 regarding whether
God changes when He tells Hezekiah he is to die and then answers the king’s
petition with fifteen more years to live. Did God in His plan face a new detail and
change to deal with it? The authors contend that God, without changing His eternal
decision about the length of Hezekiah’s life, did interact with him truthfully and from
his standpoint grant him more years beyond that illness. They reason that God could
not promise fifteen years if He did not know and control the future. They also cite
biblical texts about God’s purpose being steadfast (e.g., Job 42:2; Pss 135:6; 125).
When Abraham obeyed God (Gen 22:12) and God said, “Now I know that you fear
me,” He did not learn something new. (1) He already knew the faith was real, yet
tested him to show the reality; (2) if God knew the faith was real and was trying to
gauge it, He did not even know the present sufficiency, and this would limit God
more than free theists propose; (3) “Know” can mean such things as “confirm” H is
knowledge, know in a special sense even what one knows in another sense, as God
has eternal knowledge.
The authors consider the following ideas of Pinnock to be unorthodox: that
God has a body (320), that Scripture errs as in prophecies that were wrong or went
unfulfilled (321), and that Jesus made a mistake in saying no stone would be left on
another (Matt 24:2), yet some were (321-22).
The bibliography is lengthy, but does not cite some of the other best
answers to “openness” theories. One can check Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory:
Book Reviews 283
The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2001); Thomas R.
Schreiner and Bruce W are, editors, Still Sovereign (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995;
chapters by various authors); and John Frame, No Other God (Phillipsburg, N.J.:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 2001). The last work came out too late to be consulted
in The Battle for God. Among good articles defending the traditional view are: the
series in The Master’s Seminary Journal 12/2 (Fall 2001); John MacArthur, “Open
Theism’s Attack on the Atonement,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12/1 (Spring
2001):3-13; and Mike Stallard, “The Open View of God: Does He Change?,” The
Journal of Ministry & Theology 5/2 (Fall 2001):5-25.
What is the value of The Battle for God? It is a very useful compendium
of neotheist claims that diminish God, with direct answers on a great number of
aspects involved in the debate. It is well worth reading and absorbing.
Hank Hanegraaff. The Prayer of Jesus. Nashville: W Publishing Group [Thomas
Nelson], 2001. 100 pp. $7.99 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup,
Professor of Bible Exposition.
An excellent evangelical writer wrote this in the small format patterned after
Bruce Wilkinson’s The Prayer of Jabez. The sub-title is “Secrets of Intimacy with
God. “
Strong points abound in the light, popular style that makes the book
eminently readable and a quick study. Illustrations are clear. The book makes points
that Scripture confirms. For example, it perceives a refreshing relationship between
the use of God’s Word and prayer as helpful to the person in his own holiness, in
getting answers, and gaining reward. Most comments on the prayer Jesus taught His
disciples (Matt 6:9-13) give relevant, rich lessons. The book is correct about prayer
not being a way to pressure God, but a means to conform believers to His will and
learn dependence on Him (28). Chapter 8 on the whole armor (Eph 6:10-17) is
profitable: when Christians pray “lead us not into temptation . . . ,” they should put
on the armor in sync with the Lord (76). Worthwhile principles end the book.
Examples of these include seeing prayer mainly as producing a relationship with
God, confessing sins daily, getting into God’s Word, discovering one’s secret place,
and prioritizing communion with God.
Debatable points appear. Though the author faults Wilkinson’s book for
its many illustrations, he spends much time on one illustration after the other.
Readers learn about Tiger Woods, Joni, and others. In-depth comments on Scripture
are sometimes sacrificed. Some comments raise questions. An example is the idea
that Jesus could have prayed the so-called “Lord’s prayer,” the one He taught His
disciples, including the words, “forgive us. . . .” Hanegraaff reasons that Jesus could
ask to be forgiven because He took others’ sins and needed forgiveness for these
though He Himself was sinless (32-33). Such logic is a flawed attempt to justify
284 The Master’s Seminary Journal
calling the prayer “the Lord’s prayer.” A better approach is that Jesus provided a
prayer for disciples to pray. The true Lord’s prayer is in John 17. In Matthew 6
Jesus said, “When you pray, say. . . .” He did not say “pray as I do when I say. . . .”
However, it is true that other details in the disciples’ prayer of Matthew 6 are parts
of Jesus’ prayer life.
The broader context of Matthew 5–7 deals with those who will do God’s
and Jesus’ will. Jesus is often speaking to “you,” His audience (5:14, 15, 21, 22, 25,
27-30, 31-32, 34-37, 38-42, 43-48; 6:1-4; and many other times). In Matthew 6,
Jesus says, “And when you pray . . . I say to you . . . But you, when you pray, . . .
when you have shut your door, pray to your Father . . . your Father knows the things
you have need of . . . In this manner, therefore, pray. . . .” The context right after the
prayer is also of note: “For if you forgive . . . your heavenly Father will also forgive
you . . .” (6:14-15). In Luke 11:2-4, Jesus teaches the same essential way to pray
when a disciple asks, “Lord, teach us to pray . . . ,” and here too Jesus says, “When
you pray, say. . . .” The context that follows in Luke 11:5-13 focuses on the
disciples as the ones praying in accord with the model.
The book has much to commend it, and will refresh mature teachers as well
as be a good brief help to leaders, encouraging others to read, with some cautions.
The illustrations will entertain and retain some. But many books on prayer will feed
more solidly: Donald A. Carson’s A Call to Spiritual Reformation, Lehman Strauss’
Sense and Nonsense about Prayer, O. Hallesby’s Prayer, and works by Andrew
Murray, E. M. Bounds, and John MacArthur.
Edward Hindson. The Book of Revelation: Unlocking the Future. Twenty-First
Century Biblical Commentary Series. Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG/Tyndale
Theological Seminary, 2002. xiv + 241 pp. $17.00 (cloth). Reviewed by
William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament.
Dr. Ed Hindson is currently professor of religion, dean of the Institute of
Biblical Studies, and assistant to the chancellor at Liberty University in Lynchburg,
Virginia. His accomplishments in ministry and academia are many, including being
a translator for the New King James Version (Thomas Nelson, 1982) and being an
executive board member of the Pre-Trib Research Center. Among his books, my
favorite has been The Philistines and the Old Testament (Baker, 1971).
The Book of Revelation was previously published as Approaching
Armageddon (Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1997). It is a well-written commentary
suitable for use as a textbook in Sunday schools, Bible institutes, and Bible colleges.
The author takes a clear premillennial and pretribulational position, based on a
futurist interpretation of Revelation. Most matters of interpretation are consistent
with a majority of commentators within that camp. Rather than listing the many
points of agreement, this review will mention some of the areas of weakness and
Book Reviews 285
matters of disagreement.
In his identification of the 24 elders in Revelation 4, Hindson fails to
mention the possibility that they could be spirit beings equivalent to the “thrones”
mentioned in Col 1:16 (58-59). He identifies the four living creatures as seraphim
rather than as cherubim, even though he observes that their “description is taken
from Ezekiel 1:10, where the prophet also saw these creatures of God” (59).
According to Ezek 10:14-15, however, those creatures are specifically identified as
cherubim. In the cry of the four living creatures (“Holy, holy, holy,” Rev 4:8)
Hindson sees an indication of the Trinity (59) rather than an emphatic Semitic triplet.
What kind of threefold existence would he find in triplets like “a ruin, a ruin, a ruin”
(Ezek 21:27) or “land, land, land” (Jer 22:29)? In John’s list of those unable to open
the book in the Father’s hand, those “under the earth” (Rev 5:3) are identified as
being demonic, but without any substantiation for that identification (64).
One of the biggest issues concerning the book of Revelation is the matter
of the chronological sequence of the three different series of judgments (seals,
trumpets, and bowls). Hindson seems to take a view that would not be sequential
(“we cannot simply slice up the Revelation into strictly sequential events,” 77). He
repeatedly reminds the reader that the “order of events is always the big picture first,
then the snapshots” (80; cf. 77). The reader will look in vain, however, for a
clarification regarding this matter of sequence (cf. 128). Quoting one commentator’s
observation that the bowl judgments “can hardly be recapitulation” (169, citing
Robert Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary [Moody, 1995] 247),
Hindson seems to indicate a view consistent with a linear progression of the three
series of judgments. This reviewer would highly recommend the work of Gary
Cohen (Understanding Revelation [Moody, 1968]) on this issue—a work listed in
the select bibliography but never cited in the text of this volume.
It must be admitted that a number of the descriptions of judgments possess
striking similarities to nuclear explosions (97-98, 99, 101). However, it would be
well to remember that those judgments could be the work of divine power alone,
without the employment of any humanly-devised weaponry. Comparing the
judgments to nuclear warfare might be helpful in picturing the nature of the
devastation, but should not be employed to identify the mechanism.
The author identifies the “kings of the east” (Rev 16:12) as “an alliance of
non-Arab Muslim nations led by Iran and the Muslim republics from the former
Soviet Union” (110). However, his interpretation could be an example of what he
himself describes as “one of the greatest problems with interpreting biblical
prophecy . . . the tendency to view the future through the eyes of the present” (147).
Confusion mars the identification of the woman in Revelation 12. Hindson declares
that she represents “converted Israel during the Great Tribulation” (139), but also
says that the “remnant of her seed” (Rev 12:17) is made up of those who “are
converted Jews who have come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah” (139). On the
other hand, he states, “Only by viewing the woman as Israel and the ‘rest of her
offspring’ as converted Jews of the Great Tribulation does this section make any
286 The Master’s Seminary Journal
sense at all” (140).
Throughout his discussion of Babylon in the book of Revelation, Hindson
indicates that it is the city of Rome as well as the European (i.e.,”revived Roman”)
Empire (199-200, 203, 216-18). His strongest argument against identification with
a future literal Babylon is that if “we have to wait for Babylon to be rebuilt, there is
no doctrine of imminency!” (157). The weakest argument he offers is that it would
“overliteralize” the OT prophecies (156).
By identifying Ezekiel 38–39 and Isa 63:1-6 with the “final Battle of
Armageddon” (166; cf. 171), the author fails to distinguish between the battle of Gog
and Magog in Ezekiel and the three separate battles (Valley of Jehoshaphat, Edom,
and the plain of Megiddo) involved in the campaign that could be referred to as
Armageddon (the concluding battle). Indeed, Hindson himself concludes that
Armageddon “is probably best viewed as a war that destroys most of the earth, as
well as a final battle focused in the Middle East” (166-67, emphasis original). Some
would place the battle of Ezekiel 38–39 in the middle of the tribulation period. The
campaign of Armageddon could be identified as consisting of three separate battles
(all characterized in Scripture as being like the treading of a winepress) beginning
with the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Joel 3:12-14), the valley created by the dividing of
the Mount of Olives at Christ’s return (Zech 14:4-5). The second battle will take
place near Bozrah where Christ will stain His garments with blood when the restored
Israelites fail to follow His orders to capture the territory of Edom (Isa 63:1-6; cf.
Obad 15-21). The final battle is in the valley of Jezreel near Megiddo and gives its
name to the campaign (Rev 16:16; 19:11-18). This three-battle scenario is implied
by Hindson’s explanation that the 200-mile river of blood (Rev 14:20) is equivalent
to the distance between Bozrah and Megiddo (159).
Rather than translating the Greek gegonen in Revelation 16:17 and 21:6 as
“It is done” and characterizing it as a sense of finality (171, 215), this reviewer
would suggest the sense of fulfillment (“It has come to pass”) as more appropriate
to the employment of the Greek verb. Hindson’s statement that “the second temple”
was destroyed “by the Romans in A.D. 70" (217) errs in not including the temple
built by Zerubbabel (Hag 1:12–2:3).
The Book of Revelation is an introductory commentary on the book of
Revelation. It contains many charts and tables and concludes each chapter with a
series of questions for review (an improvement over the fill-in-the-blank exercises
in the 1997 edition). Endnotes are employed rather than footnotes, making the text
itself quite readable, but this reviewer personally finds endnotes unnecessarily
disruptive and frustrating because of the need to constantly flip back and forth from
the context to the back of the book and back again. Since the running heads on each
page fail to identify the chapter, the reader sometimes must try to find the beginning
of the chapter to be certain where he is reading in order to access the right set of
endnotes. The absence of any kind of indexes forces the reader to thumb through
page after page looking for that particularly noteworthy item that he knows is there
somewhere but has no other aid to find it.
Book Reviews 287
Recently this reviewer participated in a prophetic conference with the
author, who informed him that a number of refinements have been made in the
material contained in this volume. The heading for the discussion of the seventh
church should be “Laodicea: Putrid Church” (48). Part VI should be identified with
Revelation 14–19 instead of “Revelation 14–20" (151). Therefore, the title page that
is currently for “Revelation 21–22" (209) should be corrected to “Revelation 20–22"
and should be inserted before Chapter 20.
James B. Jordan. Creation in Six Days. A Defense of the Traditional Reading of
Genesis One. Moscow, Idaho: Canon, 1999. 265 pp. $12.00 (paper).
Reviewed by James E. Rosscup, Professor of Bible Exposition.
Jordan directs Biblical Horizons Ministries, Niceville, Florida. In this
volume he defends the historic view that in Genesis 1 God created all things in six,
normal, twenty-four-hour days. Eight chapters critique views that hold literary
features to dictate some meaning other than the chapter’s “plain historical narrative
sense” (9). Jordan opposes framework theories of Bruce Waltke and Meredith
Kline, John Collins’”anthropomorphic days” of long but unspecified duration and
overlapping periods, and John Sailhamer’s idea that the “earth” in Gen 1:2ff. is only
Palestine, not the entire earth. The book does not deal with the “Gap View” of 1:1-2
and the “Age-Day View” of the six days, since other sources deal well with these
(22-23).
Careful documentation shows where to find writings of the other scholars.
Jordan courteously but vigorously reveals how various views misrepresent a literal
understanding of Genesis 1 as necessitating contradictions. He himself holds a literal
view, but one that makes better sense, without contradictions. He says that scholars
manufacture problems where they are unnecessary (13), as in failing to grasp that
God could cause light before He created light-bearing bodies (1:3), as He will in the
New Jerusalem (Rev 21:23).
Sailhamer’s “Limited Geography” has Gen 1:2ff. speaking only of Canaan.
Jordan reasons that Sailhamer has the company of only a few, such as the medieval
Jews, Rashi, and Puritan John Lightfoot. A great majority of other Jewish scholars
make no mention of limiting the perspective to Palestine (132). Among many things
Jordan finds strange is how Sailhamer has “earth” in 1:1 refer to the whole earth but
in 1:2ff. has it meaning only Palestine.
Appendixes A–D pursue further what Jordan sees as errant views.
Throughout, Jordan thinks that other views’ appeal in “a too-ready acceptance of
many of the questionable assumptions of modern science . . . coupled with the
pervasiveness of a gnostic, or nonhistorical attitude toward the Christian religion.”
Jordan is provocative in pointing out reasoning that he feels misrepresents
details in Genesis 1. He is usually clear, now and then puzzling, but overall can
288 The Master’s Seminary Journal
stimulate serious readers to consider how some are leading evangelicals astray on
creation matters. He can stir readers to think carefully about what the text most
reasonably says and to believe this. The reviewer finds Jordan’s major creation
claims to be true to what Scripture itself says and agrees that evangelicals ought to
devote careful attention to Genesis 1 and not buy into misleading views that dazzle
with the aura of big names.
Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient
Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 2001. xxiii + 440 pp. $39.95
(cloth). Reviewed by William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament.
Beautifully illustrated (242 illustrations), well-written, and superbly
documented (592 footnotes and 518 bibliographic entries), this volume should be the
textbook of choice for college and seminary courses in manners and customs of
ancient Israel. Focusing on the Iron Age (1200–586 B.C.; xix, xxiii), King and Stager
have produced a very usable and valuable reference work for the practical
application of archeological data to a descriptive study of life in ancient Israel.
The major sections of this volume are: “Introduction: The Importance of the
Everyday Life” (1-19), “The Israelite House and Household” (21-84), “The Means
of Existence” (85-200), “Patrimonial Kingdom” (201-58), “Culture and the
Expressive Life” (259-317), and “Religious Institutions” (319-81). The order of the
volume is patterned after a “three-tiered patrimonial model of Israelite society” (5)
“based on a series of nested households” (4): “house of the father,” king as
paterfamilias (“house of David,” “house of Omri”), and Yahweh as “the supreme
patrimonial lord” (5). Using the house of Micah (Judg 17–18) as their foundation,
the authors provide an imaginary description of “A Day in Micah’s Household” (12-
19). “Dress and Adornments” (259-85) offers the reader an excellent example of the
detailed description and illustrations marshaled by King and Stager throughout the
volume.
Many sound observations are made with regard to the nature of modern
archaeological methodology. Archaeologists are paying more attention to evidence
that might have been ignored in the past: “Human parasites found in coprolites
(fossilized excrement) provide valuable information on disease, diet, and nutrition
in antiquity, while also pointing to a low level, by modern standards, of sanitation
and hygiene in biblical times” (73). Attention to detailed analysis of biological data
provides a better understanding of the anointing of someone’s head with oil as in
Psalm 23:5. Archaeological finds indicate that this may have been a way to eliminate
lice by “smearing the hair with oil; this treatment prevented oxygen from penetrating
the head and caused the lice to suffocate” (74).
One of the most surprising observations made by King and Stager relates
to a Pre-Pottery Neolithic wild-olive processing site. They explain that the site on the
Book Reviews 289
sea floor at Maritime ‘Atlit south of Haifa was “inundated in the mid-sixth
millennium, probably by a worldwide flood, after the olives had been processed”
(96).
This volume provides up to date information. Many scholars scoffed at
biblical descriptions of deepwater shipping in ancient times. Yet, in 1999 a team led
by Robert Ballard and Lawrence Stager found two 2,700-year old Phoenician vessels
with cargos of amphoras. They had sunk in 400 meters of water some 50 kilometers
west of the seaport of Ashkelon 2,700 years ago (179, 185; pictures, 180-81).
As with most reference works in biblical studies, however, Life in Biblical
Israel must be read and used with care. For example, under the heading of
“Children,” King and Stager define na’ar as “an unmarried male not yet a head of
household” (40). Such a definition ignores the use of na’ar for Absalom in the
account of his demise when he was already a married man with four children (cf. 2
Sam 18:5 with 14:27). In addition, the treatment of Scripture indicates a rejection of
biblical inerrancy and a decidedly liberal bent to interpretation. This can be detected
in the claim that prostitution was tolerated in Israelite society, but “the biblical
writers have ambivalent views about it, and the laws are inconsistent” (52). Likewise,
King and Stager state, “The preposterous patriarchal ages are the ideal, certainly not
the reality” (58). In an implicit denial of supernatural intervention, the reader is told
that the illness of Sennacherib’s army (2 Kgs 19:35; Isa 37:26) “was probably
dysentery, a common ailment with soldiers in the field” (69).
By dating Ecclesiastes to 300–200 B.C.E. (40), King and Stager reject
Solomonic authorship. They explain Abraham’s offering of Isaac as something that
was expected with regard to firstborn children (48), ignoring the text’s claim that
Abraham had received special revelation concerning this sacrifice. Their suggestion
that Deut 5:21 “may reflect an advance in Israelite thinking” (49) over Exod 20:17
reflects their documentary leanings. They also believe that Exodus 32 “may have
been intended as a subtle attack on Jeroboam I for setting up the bull cult in the
northern kingdom” (322-323). This is a clear denial of Mosaic authorship of that
passage.
Sometimes the volume lacks adequate evidential support for some of the
authors’ opinions. One such example is the suggestion that “The mkônôt [wheeled
copper stands for small lavers] of the Jerusalem Temple inspired the vision of
Ezekiel 1 and 10, not the markabôt designated in later tradition as the throne of
God” (343).
In one place “soap” (bôrît; Jer 2:22) is termed “an anachronism, since it
came into use only in the Hellenistic period (ca. 300 B.C.E.)” (71). However,
elsewhere in the volume, the authors explain that “bôrît designates a vegetable alkali,
not soap in the strict sense” (159). In other words, it appears that it is the English
translation that is anachronistic, not the biblical text itself. A clearer explanation
would have been helpful to the readers.
Due to the heavy paper utilized in the printing of Life in Biblical Israel, the
binding has a tendency to split. The reviewer’s copy deteriorated rapidly with but
290 The Master’s Seminary Journal
little wear. The publishers would do everyone a favor by improving the binding so
that this beautiful volume may be used often without experiencing such a breakdown.
Paul L. Maier. The New Complete Works of Josephus. Revised and expanded
edition. Trans. by William Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. 1,143 pp.
$19.99 (paper). Reviewed by William D. Barrick, Professor of Old Testament.
William Whiston (1667-1752) published his translation of Josephus’ works
in 1737 and it has been reprinted some 220 times. Its various defects have not
severely damaged its continuing serviceability (15-16). Like Josephus’ historical
contributions themselves, the defects are outweighed by its merits. As Maier points
out in his “Introduction,” the Loeb Classical Library edition of Josephus with
translation by H. St. John Thackeray, Ralph Marcus, and Louis H. Feldman is the
best edition available (16). However, it is also expensive, costing about $200 even
when discounted.
This edition of Josephus’ works is a cleanly typeset, inexpensive edition
with illustrations, charts, maps, and commentary. It also includes an index of the
“Texts of the Old Testament Parallel to Josephus’ Histories” (1101-6), a “Harmony
of the Numbering Systems in the Greek and English Editions of the Works of Flavius
Josephus” prepared by Neal Windham (1107-14), a general subject index (1115-42),
and an “Index of Photographs, Illustrations, and Maps” (1143). Paul L. Maier has
inserted nineteen strategically placed comments that are extremely helpful in
understanding Josephus’ text and its contributions (59, 79, 95, 119, 188, 200, 264,
295, 322, 345, 370-71, 385, 453, 491, 567, 662-63, 842, 870-71, 908). How
valuable is Josephus? M aier responds,
For excavations at Jerusalem, the Herodian fortresses, Jericho, Samaria-Sebaste,
Caesarea, Antipatris, Gamala, and elsewhere, Josephus’s works are a guide for where to
dig as well as a standard reference for evaluating the results of the dig—so closely is
Josephus’s prose confirmed by the hard evidence of archaeology (908).
Josephus’ works in this edition include “Jewish Antiquities” (45-661), “The
Jewish War or The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem” (665-936), “Against
Apion” (937-81), and “An Extract Out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks
Concerning Hades” (983-85). Whiston’s “The Life of Flavius Josephus” (17-44),
seven dissertations (987-1086), “Table of the Jewish Weights and Measures” (1087-
92), and “A List of Ancient Testimonies and Records” (1093-99) round out the
volume.
Paul L. Maier is the Russell H. Seibert professor of ancient history at
Western Michigan University. He was named “Professor of the Year” in 1984 as one
of America’s twenty-five finest educators. He is translator and editor of Josephus:
The Essential Works (Kregel, 1994), translator of Josephus: The Essential Writings
Book Reviews 291
(Kregel, 1990) and Eusebius: The Church History (Kregel, 1999), as well as author
of In the Fullness of Time (HarperCollins, 1991), Pontius Pilate (Kregel, 1996), and
The Flames of Rome (Kregel, 1991).
For the amateur and scholar alike, all students of the Bible and the history
of the ancient Near East will find this edition of Josephus’ works a handy tool. As
a Bible college student nearly forty years ago, this reviewer purchased his first copy
of Whiston’s translation of Josephus. The volume was part of a fire sale. It was a
smoke-damaged hardback of the 1914 S.S. Scranton edition and has provided many
hours of wonderful armchair excursions into the world of the Bible. Now this Kregel
edition sits on the shelf alongside it. The next time this reviewer goes to Jericho, and
whenever he has the opportunity to visit Gamala, it will go with him.
I. Howard Marshall. The Pastoral Epistles. International Critical Commentary. Eds.
J. A. Emerton, C. E. B. Cranfield, and G. N. Stanton. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 199. xlii + 869 pp. $55.96 (cloth). Reviewed by James E. Rosscup,
Professor of Bible Exposition.
This is one of the best exegetical attempts on the two books to Timothy and
Titus. For detail on interpretive issues in the Greek, phrase by phrase, and in careful
hermeneutical attention to the context and to information from relevant literature, it
ranks high, just as Marshall’s massive commentary on Luke. The latter is The
Gospel of Luke, A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek
Testament Commentary, eds. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978). Marshall also is well-known for other commentaries
which, though not as exegetically detailed, contribute a high standard of scholarly
perception on many verses (cf. his works on Acts, The Thessalonian Epistles, 1
Peter, and the Epistles of John).
Marshall, much like Cranfield in his 2-vol. work on Romans (also in ICC
series), offers much help on views to interpret problem verses, and considerations
that lead to grasping the most defensible meaning. He shows wide reading in serious
scholarly inquiry and careful explanatory reasoning. For serious teachers or pastors
diligent in the text, or students in training, the present work is right at the top among
recent detailed contributions. Other massive, helpful works join it (William Mounce,
Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000]
and Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to
Timothy [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000]). George Knight’s outstanding work a
bit earlier should be noted (Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, New International
Greek Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991]).
Though Marshall’s effort is a big assist overall, one feature that disappoints
this reviewer and many others is his hedging on taking Paul as the author. He finally
opts against this with reasoning that appears inadequate (cf. his “Introduction”). He
292 The Master’s Seminary Journal
does faithfully discuss possibilities, cover many bases, and stir thinking. Those who
use the commentary will gain solid help in most verses, and much benefit on some,
for example, 1 Tim 2:1-2, 15; 3:1-12 (elders, deacons); 4:16; 2 Tim 1:7, 16-18, 2:1-
2; 4:7-8; Titus 2:9ff.; 3:5-8.
Marshall capably sifts a vast library of knowledge on issues, does his
homework, and furnishes insight while keeping to a lucid, clear style that cuts to the
point.
Jonathan L. Reed. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the
Evidence. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 2001. $17.00 (paper). xvi + 253 pp.
Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson, Seminary Librarian.
The so-called “quest for the historical Jesus,” has been an ongoing process
for more than a century and in recent years has been re-energized by the work and
related activities of the “Jesus Seminar”. These endeavors have centered mainly on
the Synoptic Gospels and some extra-biblical material (e.g., the Gospel of Thomas).
Utilizing various and often contradictory methodologies to examine the texts, the
results of these efforts have been massive in terms of a body of literature, including
most notably the manufacture of a “gospel” document entitled “Q” or, as the author
of this work calls it, “Sayings Source Q.”
This work, by an archaeologist who, while wholeheartedly sympathetic to
the endeavor, expresses dissatisfaction over the results of the quest by purely
historical-critical methodology. He details his concern and prejudices in the
introductory chapter:
For the most part, biblical scholarship has been the domain of literary studies and text-
centered. The text of the Bible was the primary object of study, and exegesis the chief
goal. This near myopic focus on words, perhaps a remnant of Christian and particularly
Protestant theology, rendered archaeology biblical studies’ “handmaiden,” whose role
was to assist exegesis or discover new written materials (1).
The author’s concern is that biblical studies have not been adequately
informed by the work of archaeology and that discipline’s emphasis on detailing the
“material culture” of a given era within a particular geographic region. The goal of
this work is to bring archaeological data, particularly from the region of Galilee to
bear on the subject of the “historical Jesus,” in an attempt to provide what the author
apparently perceives as a lack of factual underpinnings to the foundation of these
studies. Related to these studies, he perceptively notes,
With rare exceptions, notably the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or Nag Hammadi
Library well over a generation ago, scholars working on Jesus and Galilee with literary
evidence simply introduce new methods or innovative theories to analyze these texts.
Book Reviews 293
The collage of citations is re-shuffled or re-mixed, emphasizing some passages over
others, while re-interpreting a few, perhaps in dialogue with other disciplines (214).
The author is a professor of New Testament and Christian origins at the
University of LaVerne in California and is the field director of the Sepphoris
Acropolis excavations. The overall work is well accomplished in terms of layout
and logical progression. Though the author indicated that this work would not be a
“collection of archaeological artifacts” (xi), the volume is nonetheless adequately
illustrated with diagrams, charts and some photographs. There is also a brief, but
adequate subject index. There is a remarkably thorough bibliography (221-46),
which is one of the strongest aspects of the work. The bibliography is so large that
it might have been helpful for the author to make some categorical subdivisions
within it. Also, in light of the author’s discussion of the road system, his insistence
that no major roadway went through Capernaum (148-49) and the subsequent
discussion of trade and commerce in Galilee, it seems strange that David A. Dorsey’s
definitive work, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Johns Hopkins Press,
1991) is not referenced. The book is divided into three main sections: the first part
dealing mainly with the cultural geography of Galilee; the second centering on two
Galilean cities, Sepphoris and Capernaum; and the third the integration of the
author’s archaeological conclusions to “Q” and the “historical Jesus” quest.
In the chapter “Jesus and Sepphoris Revisted,” (100-138), he details the
issues related to this interesting, and in terms of secular history, significant city.
Sepphoris was a leading city of Galilee, and under Herod Antipas had been the
regional capital. Josephus called the city “the ornament of all Galilee” (Ant. 18.27).
The issue of Sepphoris has always been that, despite Jesus’ extensive ministry in
Galilee, this city is never mentioned in the NT. This omission has long perplexed
NT scholars who have insisted that the largely Greek-speaking, cosmopolitan center
located only a few miles from Nazareth must play a large role in understanding the
cultural background of Jesus’ life and ministry. The author notes, “[H]ow Sepphoris
affected Galilee, and how this impact is addressed in Jesus’ teachings as recorded by
his followers, is the principal concern” (114). However, in this reviewer’s opinion,
this quest, like the quest for Q, is ultimately doomed to irrelevance because of the
author’s minimalistic approach to the text of Scripture, even beyond the explicit
rejection of inspiration and inerrancy.
In the author’s view, the lack of mention (in this case of Sepphoris) in the
text is a factual omission, an omission so significant, that the text cannot possibly be
understood without being informed by some method of cultural and social
reconstruction via the archaeological data. Of course, when the text of Scripture is
viewed as just another “source document” and not a thoroughly reliable one at that,
such conclusions are to be expected. That the biblical text is not exhaustive in terms
of the history and events it covers is certainly without question and even admitted by
the biblical writers themselves (John 20:31; 21:25). In the OT era the famous battle
of Qarqar (853 B.C.), where Ahab, the well-known king of Israel, led a coalition that
294 The Master’s Seminary Journal
defeated the then-emerging Assyrian Empire, is an example of a famous and
politically significant incident that receives no mention at all. But such omissions
do not contain material or information that is of primary importance in arriving at a
proper exegesis of the text. The same can be said for Jesus and Sepphoris;
apparently no ministry or other issue of significance occurred there that the inspired
writers were led to include.
In chapter six the author endeavors to give a geographic location of “Q” in
terms of its literary center and the influences of the surrounding culture on the
writing itself. As an underlying assumption, the author makes an interesting
admission when he says,
The first assumption about the nature of Q is that it was a literary document written in
Greek. Although the early sayings may well have been first articulated in Semitic,
attempts to uncover a written Aramaic Vorlage behind Q have failed. Q, therefore, must
be located in an area where at least some level of Greek literacy existed (214-15).
The author then moves to postulate a Galilean locale for Q and, in so doing, recasts
Jesus from Messiah and Savior to a socio-religious Galilean activist opposed to
urbanization and economic policies of Herod Antipas.
In terms of the collection of information with interesting and, in some cases
perhaps illuminating parallels, the author has done a service to the scholarly
discussion. His comments as to the failure of the purely literary efforts to locate the
“historical Jesus” are incisive and in many ways condemnatory of that process.
However, he himself is following the same path as those on the Jesus Seminar quest.
The Jesus Seminar approaches “simply introduce new methods or innovative theories
to analyze these texts” (214). This author, in the blending of social science theories
from cultural geography, sociology, and the like with the interpretative process of
archaeology, has simply created a “new method or innovative theory” to interpret the
archaeological data. This is most clearly seen when he criticizes strict examination
of the text in terms of its geographical data: “This strict empirical approach neglects
the intricate blending between the literary and symbolic worlds and adds little to an
understanding of the community’s perspective on the world” (172). His concept of
keeping in mind the “distinctions between the ‘textual world,’ ‘symbolic world,’ and
‘concrete world’” in evaluating the textual and archaeological data is reminiscent of
Origen’s “Threefold Sense of Scripture,” now transposed into the archaeological
method.
The author’s insight that the literary attempts to find the “historical Jesus”
have, for the most part, failed is certainly valid. His solution, however, to further
subjugate the text of Scripture under another layer of interpretation from another
ancillary discipline is certainly invalid and wholly unsatisfactory. If this book marks
a trend to move further away from Scripture to prop up the superstructure of
historical criticism, it is a most unwanted trend, and one evangelicals will need to be
wary of.
Book Reviews 295
Herman Ridderbos. The Gospel according to John: A Theological Commentary.
Trans. by John Vried. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. xiv + 721 pp. $42.00
(paper). Reviewed by Keith Essex, Assistant Professor of Bible Exposition.
Herman Ridderbos was for many years professor of New Testament at the
Theological School of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in Kampen. He
was previously known to English-speaking biblical exegetes and expositors through
his influential volume Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans, 1975). The
present work is a translation of Ridderbos’ commentary on the Gospel of John,
which originally was written and published in Dutch as two volumes in 1987 and
1992.
The author models his approach in the writing of this commentary on that
of Rudolf Bultmann in his famous work on John, but with very different exegetical
conclusions (xiv). Rather than giving an extensive discussion of introductory issues,
Ridderbos plunges immediately into a discussion of the biblical text. “The book
aims to present an exposition of the Fourth Gospel as the Christian Church adopted
it” (xii, emphasis original). Thus the author seeks to present a theological exegesis
of the Gospel. The result is a commentary that pays close attention to the literary
and grammatical structure of the text.
Before his discussion of the biblical text, Ridderbos gives a 16-page
introduction entitled “The Peculiar Character of the Fourth Gospel.” Because the
text itself does not identify its author beyond “the disciple whom Jesus loved,” the
commentator concludes “one cannot say that accepting or not accepting the ancient
tradition [of the authorship of the apostle John] is essential to an understanding of
the unique character of the Fourth Gospel” (2). What is essential is the recognition
that whoever the author was, he claimed to be and in fact was an eyewitness to the
events he narrates. Thus the text should be accepted as historically reliable, though
this is not the essential point on which everything turns. Throughout this commen-
tary, this reliability is assumed rather than argued. Rather, the goal of the biblical
author is to declare “the apostolic witness concerning Jesus’ historical self-disclosure
as the Christ, the Son of God, as the foundation on which that faith [of the church in
its Lord] rests” (7). “The question on which the whole of the Fourth Gospel is
focused is: Who is Jesus?” (11) Therefore the theological dimension is what gives
this Gospel its peculiar character. Finally, it is the witness of the Holy Spirit using
the text that engenders belief in the reader. Ridderbos concludes his introduction,
“The point at issue is always what Jesus said and did in his self-disclosure on earth,
but it is transmitted in its lasting validity with the independence of an apostle who
was authorized to speak by Jesus and endowed with the promise of the Spirit” (16).
The commentary on the biblical text is 667 pages (17-683). The majority
of material presents the personal interaction of Ridderbos with the text of John,
seeking to give the reader an understanding of its meaning. The commentator is an
astute observer of the Gospel of John and this is the strength of the work. The author
296 The Master’s Seminary Journal
continually compares and contrasts his interpretation with previous commentators.
This is done in footnotes and many small-print excurses which interrupt the
commentary proper. The three works that Ridderbos interacts with the most are the
non-evangelical exegetical commentaries on John by Bultmann, Raymond Brown,
and Rudolf Schnackenburg. Ridderbos consistently upholds the orthodox
understanding of the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ in his conclusions.
However, he is deficient in his viewpoint that the discourses of Jesus recorded in the
text are the composition of the Evangelist. He states concerning John 17, “One must
therefore not look for the historical in the specific phraseology of the prayer, as
though the Spirit ‘brought to’ the apostles’ ‘remembrance’ and thus by inspiration
conveyed the very words of Jesus” (546-47). While his Christology is sound, his
bibliology is weak. The volume ends with three valuable indexes of names, subjects,
and Scripture references.
This recent commentary by Ridderbos does not match the comprehensive-
ness of the volumes by D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (PNTC), and
Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT), particularly in the historical
dimension of historical-grammatical exegesis. Therefore, Carson and Morris should
continue to be the resources first consulted by exegetes and expositors of John.
However, if one is looking for a bridge from Carson and Morris to contemporary
Johannine scholarship, particularly European, he will find this volume by Ridderbos
very valuable.
Scott W. Sunquist, ed., and David Wu Chu Sing and John Chew Hiang Chea,
associate eds. A Dictionary of Asian Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002. xliii + 937 pp. $79.95 (cloth). Reviewed by Dennis M. Swanson,
Seminary Librarian
One does not have to work long in biblical and theological reference before
questions related to Christianity in Asia or the Pacific Rim bring frustration. Only
a few resources existed in non-English sources and virtually nothing in English. The
frustration was even evident in Asian Bible schools and seminaries where, the editors
noted, “The Asian story was available, but it was difficult for our students to find.
As a result we all inadvertently reinforced the notion that Christianity was a Western
imposition on Asia even though we knew this was really not the case” (xxi). Over
a period of about 15 years, this present work was conceived and put together by the
editors, and the result is an excellent source of information on the history of
Christianity in the Asian world.
As with most reference works from Eerdmans, this volume is a model of
what a reference work should be. It has a thorough indexing of article entries (over
1,200) and contributors (nearly 500). The articles are generally several paragraphs,
with many reaching essay length (e.g., World War II, Korean War, entries for
Book Reviews 297
individual countries). It includes useful bibliographies for all of the entries and an
extended preface detailing some of the unique features and challenges of the project.
One feature is the articles dealing with Christianity in China. As the editors note,
“[T]he sensitive nature of the material from China meant that the writers should work
as a team with their articles signed only as ‘China Group’” (xxiv). They also detail
their decision on the extent of the geographic region that the volume would cover.
They acknowledge that the work does not cover all of Asia. There are, for instance,
entries related to Pakistan, but none for Afghanistan. It omits the Pacific Islands, for
the most part, and Russia. That decisions related to the scope of the work are
“somewhat arbitrary . . . is confirmed by the way in which Asian church history is
taught in most seminaries in Asia today” (xxiii). The editors also acknowledge that
the spelling, especially of proper names, is occasionally problematic. Often
background material is sketchy and contradictory, because the editors were also
confronted with the translation into English of articles originally written in over a
dozen different languages.
Many notable entries mark this work. For the reader with limited or no
background in Asian Christianity, the main entries on individual countries serve as
excellent introductions. Though one can understand the pressure under which the
“China Group” submitted their work on China, the otherwise excellent article is very
sketchy on details from the Cultural Revolution (1966) to the present and should
have perhaps been supplemented with additional contributors. It is disappointing
that Mao tse-Tung is not even mentioned, nor is the “Red Book” which was the
formal replacement of the Bible in the Cultural Revolution and whose writings have
eclipsed even Marx and Lenin with those who still embrace Communism.
There are significant entries detailing the work of all of the significant
denominations in Asia. The editors are to be commended for the manner in which
controversial articles (e.g., the Vietnam War and Imperialism) are handled. The
articles reflect a clear, dispassionate, and factual presentation, free from the kind of
political correctness and/or rhetoric that has marred some recent reference works.
Significant articles include those on Buddhism (98-104), Minjung Theology (552-
55), the Nestorian Church (595-98) and Theological Education (838-42).
This is an important volume of immense usefulness for theological students,
mission boards, prospective missionaries, and those who teach church history. The
long history of Christianity in Asia is well represented and documented in this fine
work.
Sam and Bethany Torode. Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contra-
ception. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. xviii + 123. $12.00 (paper).
Reviewed by Michael A. Grisanti, Associate Professor of Old Testament.
The authors are a young couple who seek to critique modern ideas about
298 The Master’s Seminary Journal
sex, marriage, and contraception. As they approached their own wedding day, both
became convinced that Natural Family Planning (NFP) represented the ideal
approach to the question of the spacing of children. At the outset they avoid saying
that other (non-natural) forms of contraception (those processes, devices, or actions
that prevent the meeting of the sperm and egg) are intrinsically sinful. Rather, their
main point is that those kinds of contraceptive methods are not ideal. They correctly
reject out of hand all contraceptive methods that work after conception occurs. They
also do not view any sterilization procedure as proper for a Christian.
This little volume is divided into three sections. Bethany writes the first
and third part and Sam authors the middle section. The book ends with a listing of
various printed materials and websites that make available more information for the
interested reader.
The authors utilize various arguments to make their case against birth
control. Since humans are made in God’s image, they should not regard their
spouses merely as sources of personal gratification (19). The “one flesh” pattern of
marriage precludes holding back anything from one’s spouse, including fertility (25).
They contend that lovemaking should always be life-giving, even when it does not
generate a new life, and suggest that contraceptives represent a selfish withholding
of something important from one’s spouse (30). They propose that one cannot make
any legitimate “disconnect” between the use of contraceptives and the practice of
abortion. The mindset that justifies the former also legitimizes the latter (65-71).
They devote several pages to the abortifacient qualities of birth control pills in
general (73-83). Finally, since the “universal church” opposed birth control until the
1930s, why do Christians today so warmly accept the use of contraceptives (59-63)?
In place of birth control, the authors suggest that Natural Family Planning
provides a better alternative for married couples. By monitoring three different
fertility signs (detailed in the book, 45), the couple can make an informed decision
of when to have intimate relations. They distinguish this approach from birth control
since it involves nothing artificial. They also contend that this method (NFP)
represents much more than a way to space one’s children (55).
What is one to make of these arguments? On the one hand, this reviewer
(as the father of eight children) believes that many Christians all too often approach
this issue with a “pagan” mindset. Do believers give enough attention to the biblical
value placed on children and carefully examine the motivations behind not having
children?
Regardless of that concern, the book under review merits evaluation and
critique. The authors of this volume make various statements that do not appear to
have exegetical basis. Does the truth of the image of God and the “one flesh” pattern
for marriage clearly demonstrate that the use of contraceptives is an act of sinful
selfishness? What is the basis for saying that conjugal relations should always be
“life-giving”? They have made a valid point that the widespread acceptance of
contraceptives (used without thought almost) has created an environment that views
children in general as an inconvenience. However, this reviewer does not believe
Book Reviews 299
that attitude requires one to view all contraceptives as sinful. Also, he does not
regard as convincing the authors’ efforts to distinguish clearly NFP from a method
of birth control. To this reviewer, any attempt to affect the timing of the birth of a
child represents a form of birth control.
This book provides an interesting approach to an important pastoral issue.
The authors clearly communicate their desire to think biblically about children and
the great value God places on them. However, in too many cases it appears that their
belief about birth control has driven their interpretation of certain passages and
theological concepts.
Bruce K. Waltke. Finding the Will of God: A Pagan Notion? Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002. viii + 187. $15.00 (paper). Reviewed by Michael A.
Grisanti, Associate Professor of Old Testament.
Bruce Waltke, a well-known OT scholar, has added this volume to
numerous books already written on the subject of the will of God. He divides his
volume into two sections: God’s will: a pagan notion, and God’s program of
guidance.
He begins the first section by asking, “Is Finding God’s Will a Biblical
Idea?” After demonstrating that “God’s will” in the Bible can refer to His
immutable decrees, His pleasures, general providence, as well as His specific choices
in perplexing situations, Waltke proposes that believers misunderstand God’s will
in seeking to “find” it. He suggests that the effort at finding God’s will is really a
form of divination, i.e., an attempt to penetrate the divine mind in order to get His
decision on a certain matter. Although this was common in the pagan world, Waltke
points out that the NT gives no explicit command to “find God’s will,” nor does it
give any instructions on how to go about finding His will. Instead of seeking to
“find” God’s will (as the pagans do), Waltke suggests that believers need to base
their following of God on their relationship with Him. The second chapter provides
an interesting overview of the tools used over the years to discern the will of God (or
gods): casting lots, looking for signs, watching the stars, telling fortunes, and talking
with spirits. In the third chapter he overviews six means used by the Lord to reveal
His will to mankind: prophets, Urim and Thummim, sacred lot, dreams, signs, and
words. He points out that there are no examples of explicitly seeking or finding
God’s will after Acts 1:24-26. Waltke argues that the Lord does not administer the
church in the same manner as He dealt with the nation of Israel. Consequently, NT
believers should not use OT patterns for understanding God’s will as something
normative for their lives.
In the book’s second section, Waltke presents six steps in God’s program
of guidance (one per chapter) that he discusses in order of their priority: read your
Bible, develop a heart for God, seek wise counsel, look for God’s providence,
300 The Master’s Seminary Journal
discernment, and divine intervention. In the chapter dealing with the first and most
important step, Waltke makes this important statement: “God wants you to be a
mature man or woman of God—that is His will for your life!” (62). He bemoans the
fact that multitudes of Christians turn to the scores of books found in bookstores that
deal with the Christian life rather than turning to the Scripture itself. In this regard,
he gives his readers four exhortations: learn to interpret the Scriptures, learn to pray
as you read Scripture, learn to memorize and meditate on the Scriptures, learn to
humbly obey the Scriptures. In order to develop a heart for God, Waltke pleads with
his readers to correlate their desires with Scripture. God Himself and His revelation
to mankind should serve as the fountainhead for a believer’s desires, which has
obvious implications for their decision-making. After one considers God’s Word
and submits their desires to that revelation, a believer may need to seek counsel from
close associates who are wise. By encouraging a believer to give attention to God’s
providence, Waltke wants that person to understand that God is at work in each life
circumstance. Along that vein, Waltke exhorts believers to accept that they may not
always know why God does what He does and cautions them against putting
circumstances above God’s Word. With regard to the issue of discernment, Waltke
offers five suggestions: (1) make your decision in light of Scripture; (2) make your
decision in light of giftedness; (3) make your decision according to your ability; (4)
make your decision according to your circumstances; (5) make your decision
according to an overall strategy. Waltke concludes his volume by writing about the
possibility of divine intervention. Waltke emphasizes that God does not intervene
in response to seeking His will in a perplexing situation. He demonstrates instances
where God revealed a great truth (Acts 9—revealing the gospel to Saul), delivered
a servant from an intolerable situation (Acts 12—delivering Peter from jail), and
even changed the direction of a servant (Acts 10—commanding Peter to eat unclean
animals).
Rather than “seeking” or “finding” God’s will, Waltke exhorts believers to
follow the guidance of God. He contends that finding answers to the common
questions of life (e.g., changing jobs, getting married, going to school, etc.) will
require growing close to God. Waltke encourages believers to spend less time
wrestling over discerning the details of God’s will and suggests that they carefully
listen to God the Spirit as He speaks through His Word and obey what His Word
clearly reveals.
This reviewer found the book under consideration helpful on several fronts.
It is clearly written and exhorts its readers to give first place to God’s Word in their
process of decision-making as well as life in general. Waltke seeks to direct the
attention of his readers away from finding or seeking God’s will and toward the
important issue of obeying God’s revealed will. He also demonstrates that some of
the efforts made at discerning the details of God’s will come close to following the
pattern of pagan divination. Whether one agrees with Waltke that a believer need
not find or seek God’s will in detail, every believer can benefit from the reminder
that God’s children must give careful attention to conforming their lives to God’s
Book Reviews 301
precious W ord in their daily lives.
